Dual wield！

[SpectreSC]

Even is some madmen did use it, it doesn't mean it's effective or common. It's simply biomechanically unviable.

However, it's always cool in high fantasy settings. Where some races and cultures are reckless like that

This is categorically false, at least "biomechanically unviable", whatever that means

It was common in duels and in tournaments, people carried two swords frequently as well in cities and elsewhere. It just wasn't used on the battlefield because of the obvious... do you want an arrow in your arse? ?

Nothing "High Fantasy" about it.

 

[Dayoll]

And again, evyrone here is an Historian, lived in actual 10th BC or 16th century and whatnot.

Just, we don't care, put Dual Wield into the game if it's possible. It could be a great addition to the game for some people that want to play some High Combat master (a bit of fantasy) or a f****ng Bandit boss that just Dual Wield. Where is the problem.

You don't like it, you don't use it. It's as simple as that. It wont break your immersion or game if it's just for single player (or maybe a branch of some Battanian/Sturgian troops like someone said, berserkers, but you know they wont last long).

A bit of "hollywood show" is sometimes interesting, to make things a bit more epic for some people.
Just stop your ranting about history. History is just a big guess (At least about the most obscure topics like this one) as long as we don't have a time machine to properly see it with our own eyes.

 

[Chlodulf]

This is categorically false, at least "biomechanically unviable", whatever that means

It was common in duels and in tournaments, people carried two swords frequently as well in cities and elsewhere. It just wasn't used on the battlefield because of the obvious... do you want an arrow in your arse? ?

Nothing "High Fantasy" about it.

I'll elaborate on that, since you don't understand what I mean.
The fact that you need your whole body muscles to work together, to deliver an effective cut, means that the offhand is in no position to deliver an effective cut. You could argue that you can cut with the offhand after you are done cutting with the main hand. But that isn't really any faster than just cutting with the main hand again, at that point. Meaning that the only advantage is blocking with either hand while simultaneously delivering a cut/thrust with the other hand. At that point you defaulted to use one weapon mainly for blocking at any given time.

Sure, in some instances, you could thrust from two angles when you are closer to your sparring partner or enemy.
And unless you control their sword at that range, you will get impaled as well.

So yes...if you had a choice of using one onehanded weapon or two onehanded weapons, you might as well choose two onehanded weapons since you get an advantage.
However, if you could choose a shield/buckler or a longer twohanded weapon. I don't think anyone would choose two onehanded weapons given the choice.

 

[Chlodulf]

And again, evyrone here is an Historian, lived in actual 10th BC or 16th century and whatnot.

Just, we don't care, put Dual Wield into the game if it's possible. It could be a great addition to the game for some people that want to play some High Combat master (a bit of fantasy) or a f****ng Bandit boss that just Dual Wield. Where is the problem.

You don't like it, you don't use it. It's as simple as that. It wont break your immersion or game if it's just for single player (or maybe a branch of some Battanian/Sturgian troops like someone said, berserkers, but you know they wont last long).

A bit of "hollywood show" is sometimes interesting, to make things a bit more epic for some people.
Just stop your ranting about history. History is just a big guess (At least about the most obscure topics like this one) as long as we don't have a time machine to properly see it with our own eyes.

You don't need to be a historian in order to know how to fight or have common sense.

I'm not against dual wielding in fantasy settings, but it has no palce in vanilla imo.

Edit: People don't want to die, so they'll use techniques that are effective. When they fought for show, sure, you see dual wielding. (gladiators, some japanese martial arts and european duels sometimes with mostly dagger in offhand)

 

[SmattlePattle]

Simple solution: Let people make dumb choices and have the consequences for them be in game.

Enable duel wielding and make it suck so if you wanna gimp yourself that's your own business.

 

[Dayoll]

You don't need to be a historian in order to know how to fight or have common sense.

I'm not against dual wielding in fantasy settings, but it has no palce in vanilla imo.

Common sense ? So let's say a mad Viking went dual Wielding cause he wanted to find death in battle/duel/whatever fight, you'd tell me it would be impossible cause of common sense ?

It's not because it's not common that it has not existed. Common sense is just an argument of a guy living in an era, having no experience of past times that just guess based on his "knowledge" on the topic what could have and have not been at the time. Actually, there is not enough source material to make a proper assessment on the matter.

Again, it could have it's place. Just don't use it. Why refuse the possibility to people, if you're not encouraged and have the possibility, to not use it ?

 

[SpectreSC]

I'll elaborate on that, since you don't understand what I mean.
-Snip-

See the various sources I've linked that can counter your point on how "hard" it was to wield two weapons effectively, you'll be pleasantly surprised how wrong you are.

Sure, in some instances, you could thrust from two angles when you are closer to your sparring partner or enemy.
And unless you control their sword at that range, you will get impaled as well.

So yes...if you had a choice of using one onehanded weapon or two onehanded weapons, you might as well choose two onehanded weapons since you get an advantage.

Yes, two one-handed weapons was usually the choice of preference in dueling and other single combat for exactly these reasons. It was advantageous. You also have more control over the flow of combat because of how versatile it can be.

However, if you could choose a shield/buckler or a longer twohanded weapon. I don't think anyone would choose two onehanded weapons given the choice.

In open warfare? Of course I'd take a shield! Anyone would, like I said... would you like an arrow in your arse? Of course not. No one is saying otherwise here

The only silly claim here being made by most people is that dual-wielding is "fantasy" when it's not. If it was "fantasy" then I guess all of our previous known history may as well be called "fantasy" too ?

 

[Chlodulf]

See the various sources I've linked that can counter your point on how "hard" it was to wield two weapons effectively, you'll be pleasantly surprised how wrong you are.



Yes, two one-handed weapons was usually the choice of preference in dueling and other single combat for exactly these reasons. It was advantageous. You also have more control over the flow of combat because of how versatile it can be.



In open warfare? Of course I'd take a shield! Anyone would, like I said... would you like an arrow in your arse? Of course not. No one is saying otherwise here

The only silly claim here being made by most people is that dual-wielding is "fantasy" when it's not. If it was "fantasy" then I guess all of our previous known history may as well be called "fantasy" too ?

I was strictly talking about duels here.
I did not negate the fact that it was used in some cases for dueling. Typically with a shorter weapon in the offhand.

I was just pointing out how someone would prefer other styles over dual wielding even in duels where you can choose your arms.
Why do you think most duels use the same weapon type/combination? It just wouldn't be fair to compare apples to oranges when trying to determine skill. Dual wielding isn't some superior form of dueling arms combination, it is just that a combination of weapons.
In my experience, in duels where you can choose your arms, people tend to choose longer range or better protection. Otherwise good luck blocking that twohanded sword with a blocking dagger/short offhand weapon.

That being said, we are talking about M&B Bannerlord here. Do you agree that dual wielding should not be on the battlefield of calradia? Because this is what the topic is about. I'm not against having dual wielding in duels, it could be really fun.

Edit: The part about 'fantasy' was referring to dual wielding on the battlefield. I said it would be really cool to see in fantasy settings that way.

 

[Chlodulf]

Common sense ? So let's say a mad Viking went dual Wielding cause he wanted to find death in battle/duel/whatever fight, you'd tell me it would be impossible cause of common sense ?

It's not because it's not common that it has not existed. Common sense is just an argument of a guy living in an era, having no experience of past times that just guess based on his "knowledge" on the topic what could have and have not been at the time. Actually, there is not enough source material to make a proper assessment on the matter.

Again, it could have it's place. Just don't use it. Why refuse the possibility to people, if you're not encouraged and have the possibility, to not use it ?

I thought we were talking about battlefields and armies. My apologies.
I edited to include my opinion on duels as well.

 

[WhiteEyedSh4rk]

I understand you don't like historical accuracy nor sources and credibility, but please at least educate yourself on some of these topics before making claims and denying proven history.

I am not denying that dual wielding might have been used in some duels or tournaments. The only things I am denying are that dual wielding was used in battles (none of the sources you've shown say anything about this!) and that knights didn't use shields.

 

[duchuy613]

Why is this even an argument? Who cares if people actually used dual wielding or not?

Implementing it into the game is too much work for too little result. There's no reason to add it to the game. Why bother creating new animations and gameplay mechanic for dual wielding? If you want to do more damage, get a 2-handed, if you want defense, get a shield. Want range? Bow/crossbow.

What exactly does dual wielding add to the game that isn't already there?

 

[Viik]

A picture from a manual is not an evidence of anything beyond some artist painting it. I can show you a picture of a girl dressed as Easter bunny. Shall we conclude that it is custom in our age to dress up as Easter bunny? Perhaps we can even argue that Easter bunnies are real... Because there is a picture of one. There are classical paintings of the Jesus Christ surrounded by people in 16th century plate armor with Roman banners on background... Do I need to continue?
Fencing schools, through out the ages, especially renaissance, taught all kind of stuff, just as now you can go and become a martial artist in a "Northern Giraffe Kicking a Frog" style. The small sword and a dagger, was a very common occurrence in 17th century. But not because it was some sort of superior technique, it was a matter of practicality. At this point of time, people in large cities where not fine with someone walking around in a battle dress, neither you where allowed to carry weapons, unless it was required by your job or you had a certain status. If you where from upper class, you could probably carry full blown rapier and people wouldn't care but it's simply impractical in day to day business. Nevertheless you need something to protect yourself and short sword and a dagger, with good practice seam to have been doing just fine. There are techniques which help you with control of multiple enemies, there are technique to deal with someone who has a much heavier or a longer weapon (who would guess that some people didn't respect laws, especially if they wanted to kill you). So you can protect yourself, in a civilian situation. Keep in mind that for many upper class people, this would be a limit of experience with warfare, for a simple reason that army structures, training and equipment was done completely differently compared to 200 years before that. You where not trained as a warrior from the age of 6 to join ranks of elite cavalry and army core, you are more likely to be a bureaucrat. The point is that people where not completely stupid and used what worked and didn't use what didn't work.

The other side is that people often forget that main purpose of tournaments was socializing and entertainment. What it means is that people could have staged fights, with all kind of weapons and weird rules. There where entertainers who's sole job was to demonstrate prowess with weapons, riding, acrobatics and etc. There where flight archery competitions, I've heard Ottomans where really good at it. The point is, what happened there, have very little relevance to the warfare.

And of course other oddities. Like there where a case of judge decision where sides had to solve their argument in duel, the weapon was.... fish. I can't find right now where I've seen that, but there was a depiction attached. A lot of argument where solved by duels and it's not rare that judge would decide on weapons. Which resulted in case of people dueling with rakes, chairs and etc.

Unfortunately we don't know many details about medieval societies. Especially when it comes to a nerdy subjects such as "where arrowheads at Agincourt case hardened or not?", half of the people there on actual battlefield probably would not know or care. But we do care and want to know

Mount & Blade is a game, but so far it managed to stay mostly in the realm of historical fiction. This attracts and detracts different groups of people, this has a heavy influence on what kind of mods are made. Which in return influences longivity of the game and brings hundreds if not thousands of hours of fun for the people who like it. In it's own way it's a niche game and it is benefitial for everyone involved if it stays like that.
The argument that dual wielding could be used in tournaments is a good one but then why not have all other things too, including goofy stuff, like nets, humongous helmets and fish fights? Or rather the same resources could go into extending other, more important things?
I personally would be much happier if instead of dual wielding, same resources would go into:
- war elephants
- chariots
- field war engines
- early firearms
- ability to pull rider from the horse
- flails
- deeper interaction with realm
- custom bows and armors
- various armor and weapon smiths who could make custom things for you or even teach you something new
- durability of armor (both in battle and long term)
- custom formations, so we could finally have a proper shot and pike mod
- regiment designer where you not only set certain ranges of equipment but decide on ratio of infantry/archer/cavalry in regiments
- a proper mercenary company campaign
All this could be in a realm of possibility and has much better grounding in history. Adding dual wielding would add a flavor to a part of the game where it already developed the most. We really need more content, not visual fluff.

 

[Viik]

Or look at this for example:

Do you imagine a challenge of campaign where you are bound to have only low tier troops? But you could have a wagon forts

 

[VanHoven]

I like schola gladiatora for my historical weapon fix .It's only an opinion, ofc. But this guy spends a lot time researching and actually training and performing historical fighting styles.

To sum the video up. It was done, though primarily not on the battlefield. (needed too much training to be effective/was more or a 1v1 fighting style) In the far east however there is clear proof it was also considered a valid battlefield choice (dominantly in japan/malaysia). Interstingly, especially in Japan the use of a shield wasn't very common.

 

[SpectreSC]

I like schola gladiatora for my historical weapon fix .It's only an opinion, ofc. But this guy spends a lot time researching and actually training and performing historical fighting styles.

This is a good video. Of course it's an opinion but he goes through the effort of, as you said, actually researching and performing these types of techniques and fighting styles. He made some solid points towards both sides of the argument here.

And as I've said and he also states, it was something used in dueling and tournaments and not on the battlefield. Though he points out some situations in which there were cases of it's usage on the battlefield.

 

[Pt.C]

A picture from a manual is not an evidence of anything beyond some artist painting it. I can show you a picture of a girl dressed as Easter bunny. Shall we conclude that it is custom in our age to dress up as Easter bunny? Perhaps we can even argue that Easter bunnies are real... Because there is a picture of one. There are classical paintings of the Jesus Christ surrounded by people in 16th century plate armor with Roman banners on background... Do I need to continue?
Fencing schools, through out the ages, especially renaissance, taught all kind of stuff, just as now you can go and become a martial artist in a "Northern Giraffe Kicking a Frog" style. The small sword and a dagger, was a very common occurrence in 17th century. But not because it was some sort of superior technique, it was a matter of practicality. At this point of time, people in large cities where not fine with someone walking around in a battle dress, neither you where allowed to carry weapons, unless it was required by your job or you had a certain status. If you where from upper class, you could probably carry full blown rapier and people wouldn't care but it's simply impractical in day to day business. Nevertheless you need something to protect yourself and short sword and a dagger, with good practice seam to have been doing just fine. There are techniques which help you with control of multiple enemies, there are technique to deal with someone who has a much heavier or a longer weapon (who would guess that some people didn't respect laws, especially if they wanted to kill you). So you can protect yourself, in a civilian situation. Keep in mind that for many upper class people, this would be a limit of experience with warfare, for a simple reason that army structures, training and equipment was done completely differently compared to 200 years before that. You where not trained as a warrior from the age of 6 to join ranks of elite cavalry and army core, you are more likely to be a bureaucrat. The point is that people where not completely stupid and used what worked and didn't use what didn't work.

The other side is that people often forget that main purpose of tournaments was socializing and entertainment. What it means is that people could have staged fights, with all kind of weapons and weird rules. There where entertainers who's sole job was to demonstrate prowess with weapons, riding, acrobatics and etc. There where flight archery competitions, I've heard Ottomans where really good at it. The point is, what happened there, have very little relevance to the warfare.

And of course other oddities. Like there where a case of judge decision where sides had to solve their argument in duel, the weapon was.... fish. I can't find right now where I've seen that, but there was a depiction attached. A lot of argument where solved by duels and it's not rare that judge would decide on weapons. Which resulted in case of people dueling with rakes, chairs and etc.

Unfortunately we don't know many details about medieval societies. Especially when it comes to a nerdy subjects such as "where arrowheads at Agincourt case hardened or not?", half of the people there on actual battlefield probably would not know or care. But we do care and want to know

Mount & Blade is a game, but so far it managed to stay mostly in the realm of historical fiction. This attracts and detracts different groups of people, this has a heavy influence on what kind of mods are made. Which in return influences longivity of the game and brings hundreds if not thousands of hours of fun for the people who like it. In it's own way it's a niche game and it is benefitial for everyone involved if it stays like that.
The argument that dual wielding could be used in tournaments is a good one but then why not have all other things too, including goofy stuff, like nets, humongous helmets and fish fights? Or rather the same resources could go into extending other, more important things?
I personally would be much happier if instead of dual wielding, same resources would go into:
- war elephants
- chariots
- field war engines
- early firearms
- ability to pull rider from the horse
- flails
- deeper interaction with realm
- custom bows and armors
- various armor and weapon smiths who could make custom things for you or even teach you something new
- durability of armor (both in battle and long term)
- custom formations, so we could finally have a proper shot and pike mod
- regiment designer where you not only set certain ranges of equipment but decide on ratio of infantry/archer/cavalry in regiments
- a proper mercenary company campaign
All this could be in a realm of possibility and has much better grounding in history. Adding dual wielding would add a flavor to a part of the game where it already developed the most. We really need more content, not visual fluff.

That's great. When I think about the crouching stealth feature, the back stabbing and other crimes, there are more stronghold developments and naval battles.
It feels like the battleship remote against in the sea battle can be animated like siege machines on the large map, the boarding is the same as before.

 

[Ryotarou]

Double grip should be an option and do not come on the side of "realism" because if it were so realistic you could have that kind of choice

 

[Habsburg]

I would just like to say that there is real evidence of warriors using two swords at once. Not only have historians written about it in many places, we also have an illustration by Michelangelo in collaboration with Nietzsche, Aristotle and Mozart. Now, I did have to go through a lot of trouble with the FBI, KGB, GeStaPo and Swiss Guard to obtain this, but here is the undeniable proof. To all those who said there is no proof of dual wielding - why don't you explain this, hm?

隐藏: Read scientific argument first ^

 

[Calathar]

no issue with DW for me, as long as it's not OP. If it will be balanced, I don't see why it would be any kind of problem to have this in Bannerlord.

 

[Nordmann]

no issue with DW for me, as long as it's not OP. If it will be balanced, I don't see why it would be any kind of problem to have this in Bannerlord.

Apart from it looking daft, of course. But archers would be pretty pleased I'd imagine!