Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

Users who are viewing this thread

ilex said:
Two weapon wieding is not for organized armies nor for people who lack the ability to handle two weapons in different hands. Dual wielding might be for suicidal characters (berserkers), and as I mentioned one can wield a small shield and a small dagger in the same hand, even some archers had shields. And why don't all single-hand weapon wielders in the game have shields? They cannot afford one, but two cudgels should cost nothing and if you asked me I would use two cudgels instead of one.

edit: I found a link saying: "Katana: The longsword used by the Samurai, and worn with the Wakizashi as part of the "Daisho" (long and short). At least one famous samurai was known to have used the Daisho as paired weapons." URL: http://www.innocence.com/fengshui/worldbook/japanese-weaponry.html You can decide your self if you consider it as a reliable source or not.

You would use two cudgels? Have you ever tried fighting with one weapon in each hand? With a cudgel in each hand yes maybe that would confuse the enemy, but it would confuse you atleast as much. It's hard to put any real force into a blow dealt with your off hand and it's easy to become unbalanced. I would much rather use just one weapon since that would give me the advantage of beeing able to choose when to use both hands or just one. Even dropping the shield can be useful at times.

Even if there where a few appearances of dual wielding samurais you have to remember that the japaneese swords where totally different from the european. They where light and sharp, and the balance point was in the handle. European swords where blunt and heavy, relying on concentration of force in a small area to cause damage. Their balance point was some decimetres onto the blade to provide more force. Now imagine grabbing a 4 kilo (9 pounds) stick by one end in your off hand (making sure the stick is balanced well away from your hand) and trying to make anything useful. Add to that another equal stick in your main hand... seems rather clumsy..

Worbah said:
... And we can all remember the era of Swadian rule, don't we? The fantasy elements I'm talking about is **** that makes sense that weren't done IRL, not because of inferior technology but because of cultural superstitions, like if you can use a weapon in your left hand as well you should be allowed to do it. If it is physically possible but was frowned upon because God said so then you should be able to do it in the game (and before you twist my words, I'm not talking about incest and murder). I mean, this could actually make the daggers usefull! And since you are referring to history books, do they mention soldiers with dagger/shield combinations? Medieval javelin thrower knights? Fresh recruits adressing kings (or other nobles for that matter) in what appears to be their own private quarters. Either that or they have very minimalistic throne rooms.

IT'S A GODDAMN GAME!!!

It's a game that is cool mainly because of the aspiration for realistic combat rather than fantasy hack&slash that's been done to death to many times. Sure if it where physically possible to dual wield then fine, but I don't belive it is physically possible to do it using medieval european weapons and still be effective in combat and that's why it shouldn't be put into the game. No one in their right mind would (and I'm speaking of reality now) drop the shield for an additional weapon.
 
also, the wakizashi was usually not used for combat. It was used for ceremonial purposes (seppuku, execution, etc.) and was sort of like a badge of honor (only samurai were allowed both a katana and a wakizashi.) It also helped to avoid unpleasent mistakes by identifying them as a samurai(a samurai that had been insulted by a civilian was allowed to execute them on the spot with his wakizashi.)
 
I'm sure that with enough intensive training and practice ... it would be feasible for a person to wield two weapons with a degree of skill, regardless of the weapons (as long as it was physically possible = no lance and spear combo).

I've read about many battles ... cannot seem to remember even a single one where a large group carried two weapons rather than a shield and a weapon. Hence, even though it might be possible ... it isn't very viable.

Personally, I would be against two-weapon fighting. Sometimes realism can be taken too far and hamper fun gameplay, but I just don't think that this would be one of those cases.

Narcissus
 
I don't think dual weilding would be a useless weapon form but I can think of a couple good reason why it wouldn't have caught on much in middle ages technology warefare

I do armoured combat in a medieval group (SCA heavy combat) using fairly realisticly weighted weapons, and with full contact (blows are not counted unless they are quite hard). Sword and sheild is my favorite weapon form. It gives me exellent frontal protection especailly on the battle feild when there are a lot of foes in range to attack you, execllent to act as an outer shell/front line of a unit protecting pole arm weilders and long spear men who'd make up back ranks... but dual weapons has it's pros

In favour of dual weapons:

I do not believe that medieval one handed sword would normally be 4 kilos as someone has asserted... I think most were 2 to 3 pounds. That's from the sources I've encountered, they could be baised sources, but I felt that I had to put in my opinion there. You still have to put your body into the blow to make it strike effectively (since it's long and unweildy and you want to hit hard) but you rotate your right hip/shoulder forward when you strike with the right arm and then the left hip/shoulder forward when you strike with the left arm... not so hard once you get the hang of it. You have to rotate the right hip back anyway to ready yourself for your next strike fighting one handed.... I don't see the weight of an offhand weapon being an issue as long as your off hand was strong enough to weild the weapon in question (some people are stronger then others and can use heavier or longer weapons than others but given the right weapons anyone could have the strength to do it if they knew what they were doing) I don't think many peopl's off hand is THAT much weaker than thier main hand.

A large sheild can slow one down (they are pretty heavy and the size can interfere with long strides when on foot), and for a relitively fast attack foot unit, dual weapons are a feasable option. Imagine a fast and relitively stealthy group of fighters slipping around enimy lines and wrecking havoc from behind.. would they slaughter thier foes faster with a weapon in one hand or a weapon in each?

In single combat however is where I think dual weapons have thier real home. After several years of doing sword&sheild as well as a bit of spear and polearm, I tried two weapon fighting and it worked fairly well. I was far from the first to try it as many of the poeple I fight with were doing it before I ever picked up my first sword. Many of them liked it so much they decided to specailize with it! Suprizingly to myself, I found it extremely effective right from the start. I'm not ambidexterous, and my offhand attack is slowwer and rather clumsy, but it CAN land hard blows and that forces my opponent to either leave himself vulnerable to it or shift his defense to cover both weapons. I'm sure some of my success was due to people that know my style with sword and sheild not knowwing what to expect from me with a second sword in my hand, and it can kind of suck against archers and polearms because they'll gack you before you get close enough to do anything most of the time (since your defence lacks and they have range) but in single combat against a sheildman it can be very effective even in the hands of someone like myself who's specailized in other weapon forms.

Why I think they weren't used a lot in the history of warefare:

early warfare (greek, roman, dark ages, early middle ages up until plate armour) I believe a sheild would have been selected over a second weapon most of the time because ultimately you want to survive the battle. People are going to be shooting arrows or slings or javlins... people will be stabbing at you, and hacking at you! You could die FOR REAL! There's no penicillin... if your skin gets breached by a missile your odds are poor of pulling through! If you want to live your life after this battle is done... grab a sheild!

I have heard that sheilds were often carried into battle by people weilding weapons they indended to use in two hands just so they could live long enough to get into mele range at which point they'd drop the sheild (obviously not sheilds that were strapped on) and grab thier weapon with two hands

less affulent fighters (saxon fyrd militia for example) could often not afford more than a spear, a spear would be used in two hands. Also in the early middle ages returning to the saxons (cause i know quite a bit about them and I think they're cool, plus they mostly fought on foot and i'm mostly talking about footmen fighting) even more proffesional warriors like Huscarls (king's personal household warriors) couldn't all be outfitted with swords and most were equipped with axes (which were cheaper to forge)

if you didn't have a metal thing to block with you'd probably want a sheild (how many blows is an axe haft going to ward before it's useless? maybe 1?

Anyway large sheilds were usefull for thier sheildwall tactics, which were pretty effective for the most part during thier time and age. They were usefull tactics for the greeks and romans as well, and were probaby used in many other times and places in the early middle ages that i don't know about.

late medival warefare, yes the sheild loses importance on the battlefeild, plate armour provides excellent protection against many forms of attack... particularly from one handed weapons, professional fighters turn more and more away from the weapon and sheild to the two handed axe, two handed hammer, two handed pick, halbert, maul, pike whatever.. at this point there's really no point to having a pair of one handed weapons since you won't be able to do that much real damage in this way against the armour worn my many of those on the battle feild.

Do I think they game should have daul wielding? Not if it's going to unbalence the game, and I'd not be too excited by the prospect of it even being terribly popular (as someone's said before; how many sane people would chose to sacrifice from defence if thier life was really on the line? that's assuming they can afford to buy weapony and aren't limited to clubs and skinning knives) but hey if the people designing this game want to add more options and stuff, it's no skin off my back if at some point they add it... though I don't think it ought to be a priority.
 
You don't always use a shield in the game, do you? no. If you know that the enemy has no ranged troops you might take your twohanded sword. Mele defense wouldn't be that compromised, because what I'm suggesting IS only daggers/hand axes/clubs&gudgels being allowed in the offhand. If you block with your main hand weapon, you would be able to hit with your offhand weapon.
 
It's hard to put any real force into a blow dealt with your off hand and it's easy to become unbalanced. I would much rather use just one weapon since that would give me the advantage of beeing able to choose when to use both hands or just one.
Cudgel was just an example and it depends on the size of the cudgel if it is useful to use with it both hands. Yes I think I could make decent blow that could even make some bruises, but it would also work as a shield (if large enough) from opponents attacks instead of just a bare hand. And NOONE is talking about wielding two large swords. So don't use em as an example. And about it being too popular: It is still a single player game, so you won't see any other players running around swinging two long swords like a fool and if you didn't like the idea of dual wield you could just decide not to use em. But I think it's humanly possible to wield two weapons effectively (not any weapons but some). You might put your life into a greater danger, but it's your call... isn't it?
 
i'll say my two cents, here... but only regarding those parts i am absolutely sure about (100%, not 99,9 :razz:).

The greatest swordsman ever existed was a dual-wielder... i am quite sure many of you know him for his name, if not for what he accomplished. His name was "Miyamoto Musashi", and was... well, a samurai. He created his own school wich taught to use both the japanese longsword and shortsword (tachi and wakizashi, the katana was something more "middle-sized"), the school was called "Niten Ichi Ryu", in english it would sound something like "Two skies, one school".

This guy fought in an obscenely high number of duels... and never lost a single fight, not one, ever, even if it is known that when he fought to defend the Ashikaga shogunate the army he fought in lost to the enemy... not to his fault, most certainly.

He wrote a book, "the book of the five rings", or something similar in english, in wich he described his ideas, his combat style, and his philosophy.

Just to say that dual wielding has nothing to do with "fantasy", and was a damn solid (and sharp) reality, at least in some places of the world.

Going into europe... nordic tribes, to my knowledge, went to fight wielding sword and axe, or similar combo.

Returning to the east... the technique was, in its basis, quite simple. Wielding two weapons one could parry with one hand and attack with the other... the Niten Ichi school (ryu stands for "school", in japanese) focused on the use of the long sword for slashing attacks, and the short sword for thrusting attacks. The Five Rings Book describes also why all other schools are inferior than his... and considering that he indeed was undefeated through his whole life, i think that statement is not born from an overly big ego, but from facts. It's like Rocky Marciano talking about boxe. It is THE Word.
 
http://www.samurai.com/5rings/

Here is an online version of the book. Good reading, to those interested. I would invite you just to read the introduction... it is not big... and tells a lot about the person who wrote that book.

http://www.samurai.com/5rings/intro/
 
As I said, if we want to dip into the ready and waiting vast pool of tiresome movie and videogame cliche', dual wielding is the first thing we'll dredge up.

I'd far prefer this game focus on believable and interesting combat than succumb to tired fantastic bromides.

This whole discussion is such conjecture and more continuation of gross error derived from movies and fantasy books...

There are sources where people are doing, recreating, researching and testing sword combat theory. Please save us all the time it takes to read the post and don't bother posting conjecture. There's no need for it.

www.swordforums.org
www.arma.org

either of those two sources will provide you with enough information to answer why this topic is moot.
 
It always happens. When one is ignorant about a topic he tells "it's dumb", "it's not realistic", or "it's immoral".

Oh well... i'll offer a round to the informed ones out there
birra.gif


The others... well, i would like if they would get the opportunity to become informed before speaking, but i lost that kind of trust in human intelligence.

I will never understand why people don't talk only when they are truly informed about the given topic... oh well, too bad.
 
If we see the historical examples of dual weapon use we see a trend:

- A Japanese swordman that never wore armour after he returned from war.
- European civilian fighting styles (Rapier/Main Gauche)
- Half naked mad savages (Nordic berserkers, Indian Kali worshippers)
- Peasant fighting styles when forbidden metal weapons (not to mention armour) in China and Japan.

I practise historical fencing (Renaissance and Baroque) and some escrima stick fencing, and it is quite hard to do anything better than wounding yourself with the second weapon. Its use is mostly defensive, except in close range. And all the two weapon schools were superseded by the one weapon ones through the test of time.

A shield is quite encumbering. But it does not get worse when combined with armour. The kind of mobility required to avoid entangling your own weapons is almost impossible with any armour. A Fencing jacket (hardly an encumbering protection) makes many of the moves quite hard, so we tend to use sleeveless vests and two long gloves for two-weapon duels.

I suppose there will be a few individuals willing to go naked around, and maybe it could give a certain charm to those naked river-pirates to go around with two weapons (and even make them slightly more dangerous). But a reasonable simulation of two weapons would require high penalties depending on your torso armour.

Now combine no shield with little torso armour and place them in a battlefield. If it represented no animation effort, it could be worth the colour. As it is, a waste of resources.

Hollywood loves two weapon fighting. And even in slow-mo, what armour do they wear?

If a tactic was used only by suicidal troops, only the suicidal should use them...

Mmm, a too long first post. As usual.

José
 
As a matter of fact, the game used to have two weapon combat in the early versions. But I removed it, seeing that it complicated the programming side of things. I have a few ideas for improving the combat. Once those are implemented, provided I have time, and assuming I find a good way of doing it, I can try reintroducing two-weapon fighting. However it is difficult to do in a program just like in real life :smile:
 
This thread might be dead already (It's pretty worn out) but I want to try to add something to both sides of this argument. Dual-wielding is most certainly possible, and has indeed been done before. The argument that a person's offhand is not strong enough to hold a weapon is kindof silly, because the difference between the two hands in almost never that much. For me at least my left hand is stronger, while my right hand is more dexterous.

The biggest question in my mind when I think about whether dual-wielding (Which sounds so DnD that I won't say it ever again) is whether or not it would fit with the history that the game does draw from. I know that none of the factions are ar were likely ever real countries, but the were obviously designed after real countries in the middle ages.

The Swadians have always made me think of the Franks and France. At the very least they are representative of Western Europe circa 1300. This is at least how I see them when I'm playing this game. They have heavily armoured cavalry, and their ranged units are obviously drawn from society's lower tiers, and are stuck ground-pounding. The crossbow was more popular than some people think in the middle ages, even with the church trying to ban in. So if the Swadians represent Western Europe circa 1300, would any Swadians use any kind of two handed fighting style? Probably not, because as several people have pointed out, one handed weapons were generally insufficient against thick plate armour. Unless you struck at joints or holes, which must have been faiurly small even though I've never actually seen a real set of armour, you just wouldn't be killing the person inside. Having two weapons which can't pierce armour wouldn't help, so the probably would have stuck with the one, larger weapon. I cannot think of any examples of Western European two weapon fighting, at least not on a scale large enough to have been a significant, encompassing cultural aspect. So for two-weapon fighting, Swadia is pretty much out of the question.

The Vaegirs are a bit harder for me to place historically, but the combination of horse archers, mail armoured knights and rather wild looking peasantry makes me think of Eastern Europe, specifically Russia and MAYBE some parts of the Byzantine Empire (Although I'm not sure at all about the later). I can't see Vaegir knights using two one-handed weapons, because the great axes they use just fit them too well. I really don't have any specific reason why they fit so well, but they just do. The cavalry archers would probably have trained much more in horseback archery than in any kindof melee fighting, so they probably would have stuck with single weapons, which would seem easier to learn to use. Footmen and Veterans are hard for me to place culturally, because I have a lot of trouble finding a single overall influence for a Vaegirs as a whole. The Footmen and Veterans, as well as the Archers seem to be throwbacks to Europe in the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages were predominantly filled with Barbarian warlords and warriors. I can see no reason why none of these wouldn't have fought with two weapons at once. There isn't much documentation about the Dark Ages though, so it's hard to be sure. Guards and Infantry are no longer, Dark Age units, but remind me of Middle Eastern warriors. These were much more disciplined and more inclined to fight as armies, rather than collections of single warriors, than western Knights and troops, which to me suggests a sword and shield combo would have been favored. Two weapon fighting seems (historically) to be a fighting style for single warriors, not armies.

To back up that last point, I'll use Skree's example of Miyamoto Musashi. He, from all accounts, was a famed duelist. Duelists are single warriors, and are not nessesarily the best soldiers. In this game you recruit soldiers, not duelists. Most of the people, likely all the people, you recruit would have been trained to fight with one weapon, or one weapon and a shield because they are trained to be soldiers and not just warriors. Because they're both soldier populations (and farmers and peasant women) niether the Swadians nor the Vaegirs are likely to have anyone swinging two weapons about.

That isn't to say it shouldn't be found at all in the game, the Sea Raiders are obviously Vikings (I usually just call them Vikings) who were more a group of single warriors than any other group, ever, at least in my mind. They're often depicted as wielding two axes and going berserk in battle. I'm almost positive that's a bit of a gloss, but it is at the very least how their contemporaries would have seen them. The game wouldn't lose anythign for me if a few Sea Raiders would run around swinging two axes at once.

The number and size of factions which would use two weapons simultaniously and the number and size of those that don't are so disproportionate that it would feel out of place for the Player to be able to wield two weapons. Swadians, Vaegirs, Kerghits, Steepe Bandits and almost all the nuetral units would almost certainly not use two weapons at once. Sea Raiders and possibly some other bandits might dual-wield (Damnit! I fell into the DnD trap and said it) but certainly not exclusively. Because of this I think that as it is now the game should not include dual-wielding at all.

If dual-wielding (I've given up on not saying it) simply has to be incorporated into the game, it should be a skill that is hard to aquire, not even appearing on the character sheet until a certain requirement is met or a quest is complete. Or perhaps have the player choose a nationality when creating a character, and only nationalities which would include dual-wielding culturally and logically would allow the skill at all. Other nationailities could perhaps have some other kidn of bonuses to maintain a balance in the gameplay.

That's all I ahve to say, I'm sorry for being so long-winded, and if you read the whole post I appreciate it.
 
My complaint was never toward "no-dual wielding" or "pro-dual-wielding".

I was against those who automatically considered using two weapons at once unrealistic in all cases, and something right only for fantasy fans and dumb people.

I can't stand that kind of behaviour :razz:
 
People associate it with Dungeons and Dragons, which is pretty much the definitive for Fantasy, sadly. Pretty soon people will consider battles of any kind that don't involve explosives to be fantasy. I didn't mean to use your point as leaning one way or the other, but simply to show that as a fighting style, two weapons is impractical for mass gang-f*** melees, unless the idea is to kill as much as possible before dying, rather than to stay alive. For cavalry dual-wielding would be near-impossible because something has to hold onto the reigns.

That's just somethign I left that out of my first post.
 
Skree said:
Going into europe... nordic tribes, to my knowledge, went to fight wielding sword and axe, or similar combo.

Returning to the east... the technique was, in its basis, quite simple. Wielding two weapons one could parry with one hand and attack with the other... the Niten Ichi school (ryu stands for "school", in japanese) focused on the use of the long sword for slashing attacks, and the short sword for thrusting attacks. The Five Rings Book describes also why all other schools are inferior than his... and considering that he indeed was undefeated through his whole life, i think that statement is not born from an overly big ego, but from facts. It's like Rocky Marciano talking about boxe. It is THE Word.

"Nordic tribes" did most often use an axe and a wooden shield since this was the most effective combination at a budget price. The more wealthy of course used swords. Shields are however a prominent feature in every single aspect of our (the nordic) martial and cultural heritage.

About arma:
http://www.thearma.org/essays.htm

Everything you need to know is right there. I am a member of a sister organization myself.
 
Well, I hate people who respond to any request for believability with juvenile hostility. The world is saturated with, "JUST A GODDAMN GAME" 's

I am sick of health potions and magic missiles. High ground and flanking are cool. Hiding behind a shield because pain hurts is cool.

Holding two weapons is a bad idea. The end.

YOUR GAME HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE A BILLION TIMES! STOP TRYING TO RUIN THIS ONE!
 
I can't believe this... i am being thought of as a tolkien fan! Unbelievable!

I don't know if this last post is more ridicule, hostile, offensive or just plain dumb... i'll have to think about this.

1)Using two swords at the same time is not "fantasy" nor "d&d" crap, it is REALITY, and bloody hell i *do* use two weapons at a time while using my weapons.

2)I'm nor FAVOURABLE nor CONTRARY on using 2 weapons at a time in M&B, i'm just trying to put some sense into the minds of those who think that "dual wielding" is a nonexistent practice.

Now, apart from this... could someone explain me how, in the name of Depravity, allowing a player, or some enemy parties, to use two weapons at a time would ruin this game?

Perhaps it is a weakness of mine but... well... i really can't refrain myself to tell a stupid person that he is stupid and ignorant.

Greetings.
 
Back
Top Bottom