Suggestions

[Rule zum Rabensang]

And additional to that, give as Saxons all kinds of seaxes.

Oh yes, and I feel the Swurdberend needs an option for a one-handed axe. Only because he is wealthier and able to bear a sword that does not hinder him from taking an axe as well, and he must not necessarily be an "Anglo-Dane" huscarl with long axe and sword.

 

[Æthelwulf]

We tried 2h mode on all swords etc, it was the worst decision the mod ever made and was changed pronto. Oh god, I can still remember it.

 

[rapier17]

I will add another 'No' to the idea of bringing back the option for 2H swords - it was a poor decision in terms of gameplay. It can be done* in reality, but purely on game play reasons I'd say no.

*I own a Peterson Type X forged by Paul Binns. I can fit one hand on the grip & t'other on the rest of the grip & the pommel - it's not overly comfortable and I don't have particularly large hands for a male. Hand on hand is horribly uncomfortable to me. I'd much rather fight with my sword in my left hand & use my right to grapple than go with a two-handed grip on a hilt meant for only one hand.

 

[Harkon Haakonson]

Leo is right. The only circumstance in which you should hold a sword (especially of shorter variants) with a hilt meant for one hand with both hands is when you need to parry/deflect certain attacks, NOT to use it for offense. The weight distribution and physics don't even allow for an efficient two handed grip strike, it's more impractical than anything.

 

[Rule zum Rabensang]

Speaking for a early/high medieval weapon this is surely true, but it's absolutely not true for the later long swords. The whole art of fencing without a shield focussed on two-handed techniques since the later 13th century.

Anyways, I am opposed to 2-handed grips for all weapons, while I'm totally in for a 1-handed axe on the swurdberend.

 

[RandomUsername]

Anyways, I am opposed to 2-handed grips for all weapons, while I'm totally in for a 1-handed axe on the swurdberend.

I'll just chime in to support this idea. The fact that the swurdberend can take swords in the first place is enough of a representation of elite status, forcing swords over axes is just nonsensical, IMO. Surely some wealthier warriors preferred axes, at least for actual warfare.

 

[Hugh Higgins]

Leo is right. The only circumstance in which you should hold a sword (especially of shorter variants) with a hilt meant for one hand with both hands is when you need to parry/deflect certain attacks, NOT to use it for offense. The weight distribution and physics don't even allow for an efficient two handed grip strike, it's more impractical than anything.

That's how I really thought about it. If you had lost your shield, you'd use two hands to block/parry and then go back to one-handed for lunging and slashing. Because I mean it'd be harder to block an incoming up 2h-axe hit with one hand than it would two; for example. (Though, chances are the axe would crush your block anyway and quite possibly disarm/kill, but again, this isn't real life)
But, yeah. I couldn't really see it working on the mechanics of Mount & Blade: Warband. Infact I can see many things that wouldn't work.

 

[rapier17]

Speaking for a early/high medieval weapon this is surely true, but it's absolutely not true for the later long swords. The whole art of fencing without a shield focussed on two-handed techniques since the later 13th century.

Due to a combination of factors; armour developing to the point where shields are superfluous & only add weight & encumbrance, thus the two-handed weapon made it's rise due to not needing to carry a shield and because you can gain more power out of a two-handed weapon than a single-handed weapon. However that additional power is what was needed to beat the armour. Armour has always been developed to make the weapons of the day unable to reliably harm the wearer, whilst weapons had to be developed to counter that armour and with those changes came new forms of martial arts as combat adjusted to the changes. It's like a virus for a computer - as anti-virus software (armour) improves to relegate current & some future virus's (weapons), those who make the virus's are striving to beat that anti-virus software.

However none of that is relevant considering the discussion is focusing on c7-c11 where a single-handed weapon wielded with both hands would be a movement of desperation or defence.

 

[Harkon Haakonson]

However none of that is relevant considering the discussion is focusing on c7-c11 where a single-handed weapon wielded with both hands would be a movement of desperation or defence.

Exactly. We're discussing the use of swords in the Vikingr adequate period, for the sake of the gameplay. How men started using later models of longswords is irrelevant.

 

[Dragomir]

I don't know how much this is true, but from my common sense it would seem that longsword fencing techniques would be useful in set-up duels rather than regular battles. In warfare it would seem more viable as a long range one-handed secondary weapon to use from horseback against infantry (and the lenghthened grip allows for better balance). Of course if the horse was killed and the knight somehow survived the fall it would be useful for double grip.

 

[Rule zum Rabensang]

However none of that is relevant considering the discussion is focusing on c7-c11 where a single-handed weapon wielded with both hands would be a movement of desperation or defence.

Exactly. We're discussing the use of swords in the Vikingr adequate period, for the sake of the gameplay. How men started using later models of longswords is irrelevant.

Sure. I just wanted to relativise my agreement to Harkon's statement that could have been taken as refering to swords in general.

Spoiler

Due to a combination of factors; armour developing to the point where shields are superfluous & only add weight & encumbrance, thus the two-handed weapon made it's rise due to not needing to carry a shield and because you can gain more power out of a two-handed weapon than a single-handed weapon. However that additional power is what was needed to beat the armour. Armour has always been developed to make the weapons of the day unable to reliably harm the wearer, whilst weapons had to be developed to counter that armour and with those changes came new forms of martial arts as combat adjusted to the changes. It's like a virus for a computer - as anti-virus software (armour) improves to relegate current & some future virus's (weapons), those who make the virus's are striving to beat that anti-virus software.

Spoiler

Agreed. The reasons for this change are well known to me, having studied medieval history and being practicing medieval fencing (german school; langes Messer). The ups and downs of offensive and protective weapon technology is a quite intriguing matter for itself. Allthemore as this pattern even saw comebacks and many developments were not total. For example the re-emergence of cavalry lances in the late 17th and 18th century, or the fact that even around 1700 infantry (especially grenadiers) used steel cuirasses for siege operations, while such body armor was in general long neglected by firearm infantry (and even most pikemen). Then again, infantry body armor made a general comeback in more recent times with different materials and requirements.
Alas, I guess this is not the right thread for such causerie.

 

[Harkon Haakonson]

How could have my statement be taken as a general remark when I specifically said "swords of shorter variants"?
Those certainly aren't the long types you referred to in your off topic post as a counter argument, rather the exact opposite actually.

 

[Rule zum Rabensang]

a sword (especially of shorter variants) with a hilt meant for one hand

Well, reading it again it seems clear enough (due to the part with the hilt). However, while posting my agreement I felt the need to distinguish swords and swords. And I have no idea what you mean with counter argument (there was none, just a specification) or off topic post (again, there was none).
Anyways, I see no point in expanding on this issue as there's not even a real discussion involved.

 

[Leifr Eiríksson]

...and all falls quiet.

 

[Bedric]

I've just realised that my suggestion to give spears a high or low thrust, in an effort to make blocking them less automated, is entirely unworkable.  Thinking about it, the thrust goes where your cursor is pointed so having high or low stabs would make no difference at all and would look exactly the same to the person being attacked.

I have therefore come up with another idea, which may well be equally stupid.  Would it be possible to make it so you have to time the block to coincide with when the attacker's spear arrives?

This would stop people just holding the downblock button with complete impunity.

My second point on spears still stands i.e. lowering your shield to switch to seax is just plain madness. 

 

[Hengwulf]

I've just realised that my suggestion to give spears a high or low thrust, in an effort to make blocking them less automated, is entirely unworkable.  Thinking about it, the thrust goes where your cursor is pointed so having high or low stabs would make no difference at all and would look exactly the same to the person being attacked.

I have therefore come up with another idea, which may well be equally stupid.  Would it be possible to make it so you have to time the block to coincide with when the attacker's spear arrives?

This would stop people just holding the downblock button with complete impunity.

My second point on spears still stands i.e. lowering your shield to switch to seax is just plain madness.

No your point is valid. Every strike, no matter what weapon, would roughly strike the same point. The point of attack however, determines your block if you get what I mean.

Your new suggestion sounds like a parry to me, or what is the name?

Lastly I support, whenever you switch from whatever weapon to a knife you open yourself up way to much. I think knifes, seaxes etc should have an advantage to all other secondary weapons. That way people would get a free seax with them at all times, for emergencies.

 

[Harkon Haakonson]

You two make good points. Bedric's second suggestion sounds pretty decent, if Warband allows for such timed blocking detection. It would give the spearman an incentive to thrust with opportune timing from afar and have a chance to survive alone, not making it a death sentence to have the thrust surely blocked with holding down the same block direction until you get up close. Imagine the tense "duels" between swordsman and spearman, where death or survival is a timely block away.

And the seax should have a really fast unsheating/readying animation so it at least feels like a situationally viable last resort weapon

 

[Hengwulf]

What I said was a parry I meant a chamber. How would those differ? As I understand you say you should block in the right direction and the right time? I suck at dueling but maybe I misunderstand. Is the difference you mean to *block in stead of *attack. If so, I don't see an advantage of blocking. Guess I do not understand

 

[Hospes fori]

What I said was a parry I meant a chamber. How would those differ?

In fact there is a difference. While both depend on timing, chambering in terms of Mount&Blade does not only mean to block but also to attack at the same time. This is the reason why I am opposed to the idea of replacing normal manual blocking with chambering by the way. As soon as one player starts an attack the attacked one would have to chamber it in order not to be hit himself, but because this automatically results in an attack on his part the other player had to chamber in turn. This would go on until one of the combatants gets hit. Both would not be able to change their direction of attack until this happens.

 

[Hengwulf]

Ok I understand somewhat, but a timed block as suggested above would be less effective then a timed attack don't you agree|? That was my point. If I understand it correctly, we would also need to reconfigure the chamber (*attack). What else would be the point of defending in the same way?