Dual wield！

[chantrain]

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.

It is ahistorical because it was not used on battlefields, it was used only in the context of one-on-one duels. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Bannerlord is a game about army battles; it's completely ahistorical to see dozens of soldiers running around a battlefield dual-wielding swords. It didn't happen. A battlefield is the wrong context for dual-wielding.

This couldn't be simpler

 

[SpectreSC]

It is ahistorical because it was not used on battlefields, it was used only in the context of one-on-one duels. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Bannerlord is a game about army battles; it's completely ahistorical to see dozens of soldiers running around a battlefield dual-wielding swords. It didn't happen. A battlefield is the wrong context for dual-wielding.

This couldn't be simpler

I think you should look up the common definition of "ahistorical" my guy. You're confusing the term with "practicality" I believe. "Ahistorical" means there is no context nor record to support whatever is being said in history. That's not what this is. Dual-wield is historical and was used throughout history and I've already pointed out many references to you, others have also given you context. I don't know how that is so hard to grasp for you.

Also, Bannerlord isn't just about "army battles". If it was then we wouldn't have the ability to do many other things, like manage a Kingdom, raise children, raid bandit hideouts, do trade, etc.

This couldn't be simpler, if you don't like dual-wield just say so, but don't parrot incorrect and false information, thanks.

 

[WhiteEyedSh4rk]

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.

In rl it only provides disadvantages. If it got implementet realistically it would just be useless and noone would use it, so there is no point in doing that. So they would have to make it like in other games, but that would lead to unfair and unrealistic advantages.

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.

I didn't say that it wasn't used at all, it wasn't used in real battles (aside from sword/dagger combinations maybe). It wouldn't be realistic to use it in battles. In tournaments, to show of, maybe.

And that's not even true for any of the rest of the titles I listed

It is.

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.

only someone really foolhardy would do that, definitely not someone in their right mind. You can flail around all you want, if your opponent has a spear, youre done. And 88% of opponents would have spears.

Here's some of my own historical context I dug up, goes as far back as Rome.

Yea, gladiators also used fisher nets.

My point is, that it doesen't make sense to implement it just because some people used it in tournaments or because they are foolhardy. And implementing it just for the tournaments would be way to much efford for a useless thing.

 

[SpectreSC]

In rl it only provides disadvantages. If it got implementet realistically it would just be useless and noone would use it, so there is no point in doing that. So they would have to make it like in other games, but that would lead to unfair and unrealistic advantages.

Not in every case, like someone else said Knights were known to forego their Shield and use a larger 2handed weapon or dual-wield a combination of a sword and flail, mace, etc. They were walking tanks and deadly on the battlefield, so that's some actual historical battlefield context.

I didn't say that it wasn't used at all, it wasn't used in real battles (aside from sword/dagger combinations maybe). It wouldn't be realistic to use it in battles. In tournaments, to show of, maybe.

This I agree with and I'm fine with that, it makes sense. It's not practical in open combat but in single combat and duels, tournaments and arenas? It would be great and add to the gameplay there.

only someone really foolhardy would do that, definitely not someone in their right mind. You can flail around all you want, if your opponent has a spear, youre done. And 88% of opponents would have spears.

Not always, see my first point.

Yea, gladiators also used fisher nets.

True, but what does this have to do with anything?

My point is, that it doesen't make sense to implement it just because some people used it in tournaments or because they are foolhardy. And implementing it just for the tournaments would be way to much efford for a useless thing.

It's your preference to believe that and I understand your point, it would take a lot of effort but I don't see it as entirely useless. I'm not really advocating for its implementation either, I'm just offering historical context and evidence to support the use of it.

People who are claiming it was unrealistic or wasn't useful at all are just flat-out wrong. It wasn't uncommon, it wasn't practical either, but that doesn't mean it wasn't used. The people who mastered the use of two weapons were incredibly skilled fighters so to say it's a fantasy style of combat or say it's not real is just a disservice to the history of that form of combat.

 

[WhiteEyedSh4rk]

Not in every case, like someone else said Knights were known to forego their Shield and use a larger 2handed weapon or dual-wield a combination of a sword and flail, mace, etc. They were walking tanks and deadly on the battlefield, so that's some actual historical battlefield context.

Uhm no, I dont tthink knights were known for dual wielding swords and flails etc. They were heavily armored but that doesent mean they can just run around like berserkers. They definitaly had weak spots. I can imagina a knight using 2H weapons, because it gives them range advantage and they can cause way more damage. That balances out their protectivelessess. Dualwielding two weapons doesent. It basically leaves yourself open for all attacks and doesent even give any advantage in reach, speed or damage. A mace or even flail would be make it worse, because they are slow and you cant parry with them. Thats why they indeed used shields when equiping these.

This I agree with and I'm fine with that, it makes sense. It's not practical in open combat but in single combat and duels, tournaments and arenas? It would be great and add to the gameplay there.

How would this add to the gameplay? Maybe for you it does, because you like dual wielding.

True, but what does this have to do with anything?

I mean just because some things were used in ancient arena fights, doesen't mean that we need them in Bannerlord. Implementing fishing nets in fights would be equally rediculous as implementing dual wielding.

It's your preference to believe that and I understand your point, it would take a lot of effort but I don't see it as entirely useless. I'm not really advocating for its implementation either, I'm just offering historical context and evidence to support the use of it.

Where exactly do you see its use? What would it add to tournaments?

 

[SpectreSC]

Uhm no, I dont tthink knights were known for dual wielding swords and flails etc. They were heavily armored but that doesent mean they can just run around like berserkers. They definitaly had weak spots. I can imagina a knight using 2H weapons, because it gives them range advantage and they can cause way more damage. That balances out their protectivelessess. Dualwielding two weapons doesent. It basically leaves yourself open for all attacks and doesent even give any advantage in reach, speed or damage. A mace or even flail would be make it worse, because they are slow and you cant parry with them. Thats why they indeed used shields when equiping these.

Look up the historical loadout a Knight would take into battle with him, you'd be surprised how incorrect you are. Knights were known to use two weapons or one large two handed weapon on the battlefield. It's not hogwash, it's the truth. There's plenty of historical sources in academia to confirm that. No one is saying it's practical though or preferred but it was definitely a thing.

How would this add to the gameplay? Maybe for you it does, because you like dual wielding.

It adds a sense of challenge with a new style of fighting? A new form of combatant that uses two swords instead of a sword and board, a longsword, a spear, etc. You have a totally new style of fighter to face off against in tournaments and arenas. It's not a priority thing right now, obviously, but isn't more content better?

I mean just because some things were used in ancient arena fights, doesen't mean that we need them in Bannerlord. Implementing fishing nets in fights would be equally rediculous as implementing dual wielding.

Again, what does fish nets have to do with anything again? It was fairly well known fish nets in Gladiatorial combat had one use and that was just to trap your opponent, it wasn't very effective though unless you were very skilled in with it.

On the contrary, dual-wielding was effective in one-on-one combat and most times these fighters were highly skilled and masters of their trade. They were effective and deadly. I've already given you context and sources to back that up, even Miyamoto Musashi, one of the most SKILLED swordsman in history, started his own form/school of dual-wielding and used it widely in Japan during the 17th century.

He even preferred it in combat against multiple opponents as he cites in the "Book of the Five Rings". Here's an excerpt from that book:

"It is better to use two swords rather than one when you are fighting a crowd and especially if you want to take a prisoner. " He had also said "However, when it is difficult to cut an enemy down with one hand, you must use both hands."

One of the most skilled warriors in history preferred two swords over one to face multiple opponents, there had to have been a reason for that. Again, it may not be practical but it wasn't useless either.

Where exactly do you see its use? What would it add to tournaments?

See my second point.

 

[WhiteEyedSh4rk]

Look up the historical loadout a Knight would take into battle with him, you'd be surprised how incorrect you are. Knights were known to use two weapons or one large two handed weapon on the battlefield. It's not hogwash, it's the truth. There's plenty of historical sources in academia to confirm that. No one is saying it's practical though or preferred but it was definitely a thing.

I am aware that they had secondary weapons, but I don't know of any source that would confirm them dual wielding them. Every medieval painting i've seen so far had knights with shields or 2H weapons.

It adds a sense of challenge with a new style of fighting? A new form of combatant that uses two swords instead of a sword and board, a longsword, a spear, etc. You have a totally new style of fighter to face off against in tournaments and arenas. It's not a priority thing right now, obviously, but isn't more content better?

You could say the same about fishing nets.

On the contrary, dual-wielding was effective in one-on-one combat and most times these fighters were highly skilled and masters of their trade. They were effective and deadly. I've already given you context and sources to back that up, even Miyamoto Musashi, one of the most SKILLED swordsman in history, started his own form/school of dual-wielding and used it widely in Japan during the 17th century.

It depends on which weapon your opponent has and how trained he is, but lets say they are equally good fighters. Dual sword against shield? Or 2H? Don't be rediculous.

I don't know this guy but I suppose he used katanas, which are used completely differently than european swords or axes or anything you say can be dual wielded.

 

[SpectreSC]

I am aware that they had secondary weapons, but I don't know of any source that would confirm them dual wielding them. Every medieval painting i've seen so far had knights with shields or 2H weapons.

There was a book I sourced earlier called the Mathern Fechtbuch, late 17th Century. It has a few pictures and illustrations of dual-wielding combatants and various loadouts Knights would carry into combat in both tournaments and battles.

More often than not, you'd see a Knight foregoing their shield for a more useful weapon or a combination of two weapons.

You could say the same about fishing nets.

I don't see how. Again, a fishing net wasn't a weapon. It was a cumbersome tool that was not very effective at any point in history, it was more for show than anything, even dual-wielding had more use and purpose than a net.

It depends on which weapon your opponent has and how trained he is, but lets say they are equally good fighters. Dual sword against shield? Or 2H? Don't be rediculous.

I don't know this guy but I suppose he used katanas, which are used completely differently than european swords or axes or anything you say can be dual wielded.

Nobody is being ridiculous here, please stop saying that. I'm offering you historical context and actual evidence of a verifiable form of combat in history, I'm also giving you some insight and, at least what I would think, a good analysis into it's usage throughout history.

If you don't know who Miyamoto Musashi is then you really shouldn't be talking about effective forms of combat or dismissing them outright without first educating yourself on the various forms of swordplay and fighting. There are MANY forms and they were all used in varying degrees, based on effectiveness and practicality. All mastered by various swordsmen throughout history.

Katanas, Kodachis, Nodachis, Wakizashis, these are ALL equally deadly weapons and even, in some cases, far more useful than their European counterparts. You do know that right? If you don't, again, I'd ask you to at least educate yourself before attempting to dismiss verified and historical claims. And they're not "completely" different, a sword is a sword is a sword. It's like saying a Scimitar is "completely" different from a regular European arming sword, when they're not really that far apart... one is curved, the other is not, that's as far as their differences go.

To sum up what I've been trying to state, dual-wielding is historically rooted in its use and it has many sources to confirm it was used in various ways. Is it practical? Not really in my opinion but it depends on the situation. Is it ahistorical? No, it's real and was used. Is it effective? If you're trained, yes, far more effective than even sword and board in some cases.

If TW was able to introduce Dual-Wielding I'd have no issues with it since it has its obvious uses and its place.

 

[Mppqlmd]

There are MANY forms and they were all used in varying degrees, based on effectiveness and practicality. All mastered by various swordsmen throughout history.

This. Let's not act like there is one common-sense based way to fight and dismissing the fact that there were as many fighting styles as there were time periods and cultures.

I don't see how. Again, a fishing net wasn't a weapon. It was a cumbersome tool that was not very effective at any point in history, it was more for show than anything, even dual-wielding had more use and purpose than a net.

Even the most cumbersome tool/weapon can still find its use, and nets were definitely used in situations where one group would be vastly superior to another (and didn't feel threatened) but wanted to avoid killing at all cost. Like the man-catcher.

There are no needs for nets in M&B, as the game considers that riding at 40km/h and hitting a helmet-less dude with a hammer in the face is just going to make him inconscious, but if maces and hammers were more lethal then i'd definity consider a net to gain more prisonners from routing ennemies.

 

[SpectreSC]

Even the most cumbersome tool/weapon can still find its use, and nets were definitely used in situations where one group would be vastly superior to another (and didn't feel threatened) but wanted to avoid killing at all cost. Like the man-catcher.

There are no needs for nets in M&B, as the game considers that riding at 40km/h and hitting a helmet-less dude with a hammer in the face is just going to make him inconscious, but if maces and hammers were more lethal then i'd definity consider a net to gain more prisonners from routing ennemies.

True, good point to make. Even the humble fishermans net can find its use in the right hands.

Haha, agreed. Capturing prisoners is already insanely easy without a net, but who knows? Maybe even a future re-inclusion of "Manhunters" can have some of them carrying nets to capture bandits and looters. ?

 

[WhiteEyedSh4rk]

There was a book I sourced earlier called the Mathern Fechtbuch, late 17th Century. It has a few pictures and illustrations of dual-wielding combatants and various loadouts Knights would carry into combat in both tournaments and battles.

More often than not, you'd see a Knight foregoing their shield for a more useful weapon or a combination of two weapons.

Late 17th Century? Doesen't exactly fit for Bannerlord. These fighting manuals are not necessarily mean for real battles, more rather for duels. They don't say anything about how common certain weapons were. For example Paulus Hector Mair made depictions of Scythe fighting tecniques, which you can be sure, were extremely uncommon and noone outside a pretentious performance would ever use it.

I don't see how. Again, a fishing net wasn't a weapon. It was a cumbersome tool that was not very effective at any point in history, it was more for show than anything, even dual-wielding had more use and purpose than a net.

It is equally useless as dual wielding.

If you don't know who Miyamoto Musashi is then you really shouldn't be talking about effective forms of combat or dismissing them outright without first educating yourself on the various forms of swordplay and fighting. There are MANY forms and they were all used in varying degrees, based on effectiveness and practicality. All mastered by various swordsmen throughout history.

Aha because I don't know one asian guy I am not able to talk about that, sure.

Katanas, Kodachis, Nodachis, Wakizashis, these are ALL equally deadly weapons and even, in some cases, far more useful than their European counterparts. You do know that right? If you don't, again, I'd ask you to at least educate yourself before attempting to dismiss verified and historical claims. And they're not "completely" different, a sword is a sword is a sword. It's like saying a Scimitar is "completely" different from a regular European arming sword, when they're not really that far apart... one is curved, the other is not, that's as far as their differences go.

Not in duels. I said they are used completely differently, referring to the fighting style, which is true.

To sum up what I've been trying to state, dual-wielding is historically rooted in its use and it has many sources to confirm it was used in various ways. Is it practical? Not really in my opinion but it depends on the situation. Is it ahistorical? No, it's real and was used. Is it effective? If you're trained, yes, far more effective than even sword and board in some cases.

I agree that it was used, but only in arena fights or duels, not in battles. It is inferior to allmost every other common weapon.

 

[SpectreSC]

Late 17th Century? Doesen't exactly fit for Bannerlord. These fighting manuals are not necessarily mean for real battles, more rather for duels. They don't say anything about how common certain weapons were. For example Paulus Hector Mair made depictions of Scythe fighting tecniques, which you can be sure, were extremely uncommon and noone outside a pretentious performance would ever use it.

Sure, it may not fit Bannerlords time period but it doesn't detract from the effectiveness of the fighting style when used by properly trained individuals. Some fighting styles were more for show and pomp than they were for actual effectiveness, using techniques to distract the opponent into making a mistake instead of actual technique.

And fighting manuals are pretty much the best we have to go on when it comes to historical context, really. There isn't much else or a better source to look at if I'm not mistaken.

Aha because I don't know one asian guy I am not able to talk about that, sure.

Well, he is pretty much one of, if not, the best swordsman we know of in history. At least in recorded history

Not in duels. I said they are used completely differently, referring to the fighting style, which is true.

Ahh, well I probably misunderstood your point here then. Either way these weapons were deadly in the right hands.. which is basically true in any situation really.

I agree that it was used, but only in arena fights or duels, not in battles. It is inferior to allmost every other common weapon.

Yes, that's the point I've been trying to make here too. It wasn't really used in battles often, Medieval Knights in some cases were known to carry two weapons into battle and use them though, even if their use was limited. But the majority of the time dual-wielding would've been seen in single combat and duels, tournaments, etc.

If the developers had the ability to include dual-wielding, I wouldn't be against it. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Ogagon]

I'm quite happy dual wielding a lance, and a shield, thank you!

 

[WhiteEyedSh4rk]

Sure, it may not fit Bannerlords time period but it doesn't detract from the effectiveness of the fighting style when used by properly trained individuals. Some fighting styles were more for show and pomp than they were for actual effectiveness, using techniques to distract the opponent into making a mistake instead of actual technique.

I simply don't know or have access to the manual you mentioned, are you sure they weren't talking about the use of sword and dagger combinations? This seems way more suited for the time. They didn't use shields anyways because they already used guns. Swords at that time were mostly used for duel purposes and in a duel without shields, dual wielding would be more effective of course.

And fighting manuals are pretty much the best we have to go on when it comes to historical context, really. There isn't much else or a better source to look at if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, but paintings and other depictions of battles portray a picture of what was actually used in battles and not just in duels and exceptional situations.

Well, he is pretty much one of, if not, the best swordsman we know of in history. At least in recorded history

There is a big difference between asian sword fighting and european.

Ahh, well I probably misunderstood your point here then. Either way these weapons were deadly in the right hands.. which is basically true in any situation really

A katana isn't of much use against steel plate armour.

Medieval Knights in some cases were known to carry two weapons into battle and use them though

I never heard of that and don't believe it, but it's futile to discuss this further.

 

[Pt.C]

Level 26 mass production half-naked wolf-skin 2h warrior, I think heavy armor and dual wield is more reasonable.
If it's a 2h polearm with heavy armor, that's acceptable.
And that defense is a 30 - strong leather gauntlet, when will nerf be ready？

 

[eddiemccandless]

This discussion happened for Warband as well. It didn't happen there, it's not going to happen here (well probably it will, but through mods).

Implementing it properly would also not work well with the combat mechanics. Unless you are using the secondary to block, then it's just a reskinned shield (which is probably how it is going to happen in mods). It would mean a lot of development work that honestly I for one would rather see invested in something else.

And I know better than to embark myself in the whole historical discussion, but let me just say that there's a lot of things you can read around about Miyamoto Musashi, and a lot of them are myths and hearsay. Real history is another thing, it is much more gritty and less flashy than this.

 

[SpectreSC]

And I know better than to embark myself in the whole historical discussion, but let me just say that there's a lot of things you can read around about Miyamoto Musashi, and a lot of them are myths and hearsay. Real history is another thing, it is much more gritty and less flashy than this.

Yet, nothing I pointed out about him is neither myth nor hearsay, it's documented historical evidence of his skill and his prowess as a swordsman. If International Academia doesn't discredit it as such, neither should you.

61 bouts, undefeated, in single combat. The man was definitely an oddity but there is more than enough evidence and proof to confirm that he wasn't just myth or hype. You should do a bit of research of your own before making such a claim.

This discussion happened for Warband as well. It didn't happen there, it's not going to happen here (well probably it will, but through mods).

The most likely outcome, it definitely would be something that takes a lot of effort to properly include and balance.

 

[eddiemccandless]

Yet, nothing I pointed out about him is neither myth nor hearsay, it's documented historical evidence of his skill and his prowess as a swordsman. If International Academia doesn't discredit it as such, neither should you.

61 bouts, undefeated, in single combat. The man was definitely an oddity but there is more than enough evidence and proof to confirm that he wasn't just myth or hype. You should do a bit of research of your own before making such a claim.

The most likely outcome, it definitely would be something that takes a lot of effort to properly include and balance.

The reason why I said that is that I was not able to find any peer reviewed papers on the subject. I happen to be in academia myself (admittedly, not in history, I am an engineer).

As a European who lives in the US, I am just used to Americans treating anecdotes as historical facts so... That makes me skeptical of many things. It isn't uncommon for ancient sources to embellish tales (Plutarch comes to mind).

But if you have any peer reviewed sources I would definitely be interested in reading them!

Edit: this is the closest I was able to find myself

Miyamoto Musashi: His Life and Writings

It's a book, so I can only read the introduction and some pages of it from the google preview feature. Still according to the author Musashi is wrapped in legend and his accomplishments are somewhat of a controversy amongst asian historians (page xix, if you can read the introduction through the preview). It makes for an interesting read for sure, but I think that saying that this is evidence that dual wielding was an effective method for historical warfare is a bit of a stretch (let's also keep in mind that this person was a duelist, I can only say this based on my opinion but I doubt he would have taken dual wielding to a siege).

Oh man, I did walk in the history discussion. I suppose these are always fun to have

 

[Brixton Ryze]

If you’re unhappy with the game you did not create then make a mod for it to use yourself. They made it extremely easy for people to mod.

And if you don’t understand how to make a module with something as simple as C+ then learn. But stop whining. You guys that come to the forums to whine about the game isn’t the way you want are annoying.

 

[Pt.C]

If you’re unhappy with the game you did not create then make a mod for it to use yourself. They made it extremely easy for people to mod.

And if you don’t understand how to make a module with something as simple as C+ then learn. But stop whining. You guys that come to the forums to whine about the game isn’t the way you want are annoying.

It sounds like you're venting to everyone on the forum.
In fact, the action and the model required Maya and 3dsmax, and the program was C or C++, but the development version made moder very easy to use.
Personal advice is to figure things out and then preach.