twin swords?

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Temujin

Banned
I tried search but didn't find a sugestion for this so: why not make it available for someone to fight with 2 swords at the same time? so instead of carrying a shield and sword you carry 2 scimitars for instance. that would be a nice addition (tough I don't know if it's possible.
 
I think he decided against it because logically, i dont think people back then would have been able to say use 2 swords at once because of the unbelieveable amount of weight they were.

However using 2 arrows or more at once with the bow would be awesome.
 
Only 2 arrows? Well, I suppose that would have to do. What I was looking for was the dual sword fighting capability from horseback against enemies on both sides. :wink:
 
... and because the character already uses 2 handed swords (maybe others as well) with one hand, one could use 2 b-SOWs! Or maybe do couched damage with 2 great lances. This is a must-be-in-thingy.
 
well using two lances is same than using two crossbows and loading them in horseback. thats what I want!!

Or greatsword and crossbow! yay
 
Just imagine: wielding two sniper crossbows simultaneously! Holding them gangsta style! All while your character spouts off witty one-liners such as "you shouldn't have CROSSed my path" or "BOW before me, vermin"!

...

I'm against two-weaponing in all its forms. Part of what makes M&B so great is that it DOESN'T include those clichés that permeate most other games with so-called "medieval" settings.
 
I hope they've decided against it becaule two swords is just bloody stupid. :razz:

You cannot effectively wield two swords at one time - you need to put your whole body behind every swordstrike, and your body can only move in one direction at the same time. This means one of the swords will effectively become a badly designed and unwieldy shield and should be replaced with a buckler, shield or dagger.
 
I dunno, supposing that it was done with proper penalties/restrictions from the weapons' weight and lenght, dual wielding(or whatever the correct term is) might be a nice addition. It could offer something like two fast strikes which would be rather difficult to parry without a shield. Nothing fancy but just a little more variety to the player character. Historically I believe there were some silly northeners at some time or another, who tended to wield a sword in one hand and an axe in the other, so it wouldn't be purely a fantasy element. (note my accurate references to specific times and places in history to back up my claim)

The question of course is whether this addition would be worth the work it takes to implement it.
 
Боян!
:]wmw[:
Was discussed gazillion times.
Simple unswer - it's feasible, but:
a. Only viable if you don't have shield handy, really.
b. Very hard to implement, and not widespread IRL (cause, again, sword + shield or a two-hander are much more cost-effective).
Dual-wielding is like akimbo pistols - looks fun&flashy, but practically useless. Well, it can be useful, but only in very specific situations, and only after disproportional amount of training.
 
Akimbo pistols differ greatly IMO. You can't aim with them (shot from the hip) using the normal technique altho you can attack the same way with your mainhand as you did before when wielding 2 blades. In military use they would be useless, but another weapon is much easier to carry than a full size shield (bucklers are fairly easy to carry tho).
 
a scimitar isn't that heavy, i can imagine a soldier in Djenghiz kahn's army on horse back with a scimitar in one hand and maybe a one handed axe in the other.

I forgot there are other types of sword in the game (well I forgot people like to use those) so maybe only make it possible with the light weapons?

because yes 2 swords of war or 2 crossbows, or 2 longswords at the same time would be weird.
 
Sword and dagger/swordbreaker pairs were quite popular for duelling - which would make them perfectly viable for the small scale heroic warfare in Mount and Blade. It's only large pitched battles between proper armies where that kind of thing becomes silly.
 
I want two shields, one in each hand. That'll protect me! And I'll use them like cymbals to crush enemy heads!

--> ]] :shock: [[ <--
 
Swordbreakers and daggers were only used in the late 1600 and onwards. It would be outside the game. Before that daggers, knives and so on where equipped but only as a backup (see the 1980 edition of Ivanhoe for proper dagger useage). Further, the dual vielding of rapiers and daggers was used basically only in duelling, not in war.
 
TWO SWORDS?!

Sheeeeeuuut!

What we need is dual-wielded swordchucks (a swordchuck consisting of two swords connected with a chain between the pommels).

Dual swordchucks would roxorz.
 
It would be nice of specific weapons were made dual wield. Such as nomad sabres, scimitars, etc. Not longswords, fighting axes, or anything like those. Weapon length, weight, etc. would have to be put in to consideration. Nomad sabres are long, yes, but they are lightweight. You could easily hold a nomad sabre in each hand, thus enabling you to block your enemy with one and strike with the other. Right clicking could control the left sword and left clicking would control the right sword (left click = primary = right side, right click = secondary = left side). If you right clicked while an enemy was swinging/preparing to swing, you would attempt to block the swing, thus enabling you to strike with your other sword.

People who used 2 weapons simultaneously (spelling?), or at the same time, were purely offensive people. If you had 2 swords, your defensive capabilities were extremely low, and constantly attacking was your only option. If you could keep the enemy from attacking, then you would live. To keep them from attacking, however, you would need to keep swinging and swinging, never stopping, so that they would have to defend constantly. If you were going against a shielded enemy, and you had 2 swords, you could shatter their shield pretty quickly, enabling you to finish them off.

Personaly, I think dual wielding would be an awesome addition, for ONE HANDED WEAPONS of CERTAIN TYPES. No dual wield longswords or fighting axes. The only way I'd use a scimitar is if I could dual wield the sucker with another :smile:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom