Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

Currently viewing this thread:

Urlik

Sergeant Knight
you know what?
**** it
I just wanted the functionality added to make this game a bit more fun as it is heroic fiction (whether based in reality or not) and there are duels and civilian encounters where it would  be more fun to use an offhand weapon rather than a shield.

I even said that it would better if the functionality was added as a dynamic shield so that modders could add the offhand weapons (seax, dagger, knife, short sword, falchion, hand axe) and then we would have proper shields with and bucklers would also be worth adding.

but you are correct, this game is far more realistic and historically accurate with people spinning round with 2 handed swords or using throwing knives on the battlefield.

I'm done with this thread now
I only really bother with off topic nowadays anyway as I haven't played M&B for several months now and unless it gets a better campaign mode, I doubt I'll ever bother again.

PM me if you want that bout though, I am still up for it, although I am out of practice and unfit.
if you would be kind enough to supply weapons, I would like a sword and a langsax (perhaps you could bring a case so I could choose one with a balance I like)
 

Blackthorn

Squire
I'm not a fan of either the throwing knives or most of the way the two-handed weapons work. They're other bugbears for other threads.
I hope you were trying to be funny with the case comment- though that is the original meaning- so the humour is somewhat flat. Never mind.

And no, I don't have langseaxes, seeing as I'm 12-13th century. I can offer a series of knives, and swords, and so forth.
Frankly, the constant, ''I'm out of shape'' excuse is a little tiresome. Swordplay is somewhat like riding a bike. Yes, you'll be rusty, but my proposed use of 'control' bouts would highlight the relative value of the combinations, not the combatants.

PM sent. Matter closed.
 

Amman d Stazia

Master Knight
Urlik said:
the functionality added to make this game a bit more fun as it is heroic fiction (whether based in reality or not) and there are duels and civilian encounters where it would  be more fun to use an offhand weapon rather than a shield.

I even said that it would better if the functionality was added as a dynamic shield so that modders could add the offhand weapons (seax, dagger, knife, short sword, falchion, hand axe) and then we would have proper shields with and bucklers would also be worth adding.

but you are correct, this game is far more realistic and historically accurate with people spinning round with 2 handed swords or using throwing knives on the battlefield.

in the context of this post, Ulrik has a fair point.  M&B did put a fair bit of effort into developing the arena fights and the solo/ambush scenarios in enemy towns and bandit-infested villages.  These are the situations where even us realism junkies could live with a dual wielding of sorts, to represent if nothing else how dangerous a novice can be when they rush in with steel flailing and no thought for their own safety.

But in response to an earlier comment about most of the M&B combats being skirmishes:  Even in a skirmish with ten men on each side, the ten who form a shield wall will always beat the ten who are dual-wielding shortswords.
 

Blackthorn

Squire
Amman de Stazia said:
Urlik said:
the functionality added to make this game a bit more fun as it is heroic fiction (whether based in reality or not)
in the context of this post, Ulrik has a fair point.  M&B did put a fair bit of effort into developing the arena fights and the solo/ambush scenarios in enemy towns and bandit-infested villages.

I sort of agree myself- I did say ambush situations are the best scenarios for it- but still fundamentally disagree with the dual-wielding concept at all. If you're a mercenary, geared for war, and you're jumped, you're not going to reach for a weapon combination you don't use regularly. If you lack a shield you're more likely to go for a grapple than do something you never learned to as a soldier.

In the arena- well, it's the melee. It's essentially combat with blunts- and in historical instances- not always 'very' blunt... so approaching it as non-military combat would seem odd to me.

In a modded game set in the 17th C- then offhand main-gauche would be my -first- thought for an ambush scenario- as we know it was a dominant civilian self-defence form, and most men trained in sword-work would be able to do it as they'd have likely been trained.

And I think we have more than enough games that stress the 'heroic' fiction angle- this game doesn't go the whole way, but it's a game that gives people more realism than most, and that's the niche it exploits.
 

Amman d Stazia

Master Knight
yeah, my sympathy for the jewel-welding cause is only due to the fact that I would really love to see a proper C.17 mod, with all the cloak-swirling, rapier/dagger fencing that that would imply.

In native, it would only be acceptable to me in the sense of a dynamic left hand: eg shield bashing, grappling, or as an archer to have two or three spare shafts held in the bow hand for some faster shooting...  I don't think I would be happy to see any troop actually wield two weapons in native.
 

Blackthorn

Squire
Amman de Stazia said:
yeah, my sympathy for the jewel-welding cause is only due to the fact that I would really love to see a proper C.17 mod, with all the cloak-swirling, rapier/dagger fencing that that would imply.

In native, it would only be acceptable to me in the sense of a dynamic left hand: eg shield bashing, grappling, or as an archer to have two or three spare shafts held in the bow hand for some faster shooting...  I don't think I would be happy to see any troop actually wield two weapons in native.

I would love it if the javelin animation showed them held ready in the left gripped in the shield-hand... but we'd also be limited to three javelins.
Grappling I'd LOVE- but it would be so hard to implement I'd hesistate to even suggest how it could be done.
 

Amman d Stazia

Master Knight
reduce it to a few standard moves:
1 - (condition: enemy has shield equipped) = pull shield aside/down
2 - (condition: enemy has hafted weapon) = grab weapon shaft
3 - (condition: enemy has open faced helmet) = rip helmet

for example.

Grapple moves would only work if you are close enough for a punch to land, so they would only be used in close melees.
The grapple system would simply call the conditions one after the other in a pre-set order, until one meets the conditions.  After that, the move is executed and normal / other combat continues.
Personally, I would order the conditions/moves so that the moves which have the minimum risk to the grappler are the first to be called.

 
Amman de Stazia said:
yeah, my sympathy for the jewel-welding cause is only due to the fact that I would really love to see a proper C.17 mod, with all the cloak-swirling, rapier/dagger fencing that that would imply.

I'm not sure that rapier fencing (in anything resembling a realistic state) would be something the average gamer would enjoy. From what I've seen, it's tremendously subtle and relies a lot on information transmitted from the bind. There's a very complex interplay of leverage and feeling that is extremely difficult to reflect in a computer game.
 

Blackthorn

Squire
Night Ninja said:
Amman de Stazia said:
yeah, my sympathy for the jewel-welding cause is only due to the fact that I would really love to see a proper C.17 mod, with all the cloak-swirling, rapier/dagger fencing that that would imply.

I'm not sure that rapier fencing (in anything resembling a realistic state) would be something the average gamer would enjoy. From what I've seen, it's tremendously subtle and relies a lot on information transmitted from the bind. There's a very complex interplay of leverage and feeling that is extremely difficult to reflect in a computer game.

Also the sheer amount of feinting- and the actual skill to 'end' a bout with a kill... it's certainly something that is highly technical.
But having said that- so is arming sword. It's just that bit more 'whacky' that laymen enjoy it. :smile:
 
Blackthorn said:
Night Ninja said:
Amman de Stazia said:
yeah, my sympathy for the jewel-welding cause is only due to the fact that I would really love to see a proper C.17 mod, with all the cloak-swirling, rapier/dagger fencing that that would imply.

I'm not sure that rapier fencing (in anything resembling a realistic state) would be something the average gamer would enjoy. From what I've seen, it's tremendously subtle and relies a lot on information transmitted from the bind. There's a very complex interplay of leverage and feeling that is extremely difficult to reflect in a computer game.

Also the sheer amount of feinting- and the actual skill to 'end' a bout with a kill... it's certainly something that is highly technical.
But having said that- so is arming sword. It's just that bit more 'whacky' that laymen enjoy it. :smile:

Ah time for me to leap in once again at the mention of rapiers  :grin:

You are absolutely spot on. Rapier fighting is very subtle as due to the lack of body armour it becomes very 'chancey'. You can telegraph your intentions unwittingly, you can intentionally telegraph false intentions, you can read -exactly- what your opponent is going to do, or misinterpret completely - for a bout to last longer than a minute you'd have to be very familiar with how your opponent & you fence.

In general a bout with rapiers would consist of a few probing attacks and feints in an effort to gauge; opponents reaction time, skill, reach, speed, strength, balance, which foot they favor, how good their foot work is, how good their discipline is, how well they manipulate their blade, whether they are aggressive or defensive. Just a few exchanges of attacks can be enough to inform an experienced fencers brain of exactly the sort of opponent they face.

If we assume that an opening is not immediately apparent or exploited, the next stage would be the killing blow and this is where rapier fighting slows down. You now have an idea of how to fight your opponent, but you have to 'choose your ground' as it were. You can't just stand there and trade blows as thats too risky. No, you need to make sure that you are safe from harm when you make your attack, that your body will be 'off-line'. So you & your opponent start circling, moving back and forth, side to side, to find just the right moment to make your attack. Whilst you are planning your attack you have to be aware of your own defence - if your opponent makes their strike before your own, you need to have a counter ready, whether through parry & riposte or taking your body 'off-line', depending on the situation. If you were to fight defensively you might create a false opening, such as exposing a flank subtly, to invite an attack which you can counter with ease - it's amazing how often people tend to fall for that sort of thing.

Rapier fencing requires huge amounts of patience as a single mistake and it can be over, you can't afford to let your opponent gain the initiative or advantage. How fast or slow the bout is depends on you and your opponent. I've fenced people who go all-out and bombard me with attacks and others who are happy to keep manouvering until one of us makes a mistake.

Having written the above, I do have to qualify it by saying that not -every- rapier bout consists of just 3-4 attacks. If one party excels at defence then they may protect themselves until the optimum moment to respond - personally thats how I prefer to attack. I will keep moving out of harms way, either sideways or backwards, until I know instantly that I have the chance to take the advantage/initiative.

In short; rapier fencing is high in tension, requires high amounts of patience & skill, but would be really boring to play in a computer game. Unless you're me or any other RL rapier fencer or have a deep interest in the weapon/fencing styles.
 

tostig

Sergeant Knight at Arms
M&B
Heading out, so this'll be quick:
'Wielding' more than one weapon in the medieval period - given that we're including pole-arms and swords, how about the paraphenalia knights used in Germanic judicial duels (ie. shield, spear and sword, but updated to the times).
Re: daggers for parrying - I'd say it's a lot more down to the primarly method of inflicting injuries, the cut vs. the thrust, rather than the amount of momentum that they have. Fiore, for example, has advice on dealing with a man with a longsword when you have a rondel dagger.

**** it, there was dual-wielding in the medieval period. Fiore (c1410) has a man with two clubs against a man with a spear.

Crazy days.

(He also has a pole-arm filled with caustic lime. *****in')
 

Amman d Stazia

Master Knight
what has been said for rapiers is valid for most weapons in a 1-1 or duel situation.

"a duel with 2-handed swords should begin with feints in an effort to gauge the following:
Opponents reaction time, skill, reach, speed, strength, balance, which foot they favor, how good their foot work is, how good their discipline is, how well they manipulate their blade, whether they are aggressive or defensive.
Just a few exchanges - even at reduced intensity - can be enough to inform an experienced warrior's brain of exactly the sort of opponent they face.

If we assume that an opening is not immediately apparent or exploited, the next stage would be the killing blow and this is where the fighting slows down. You now have an idea of how to fight your opponent, but you have to 'choose your ground' as it were. You can't just stand there and trade blows as thats too risky. No, you need to make sure that you are safe from harm when you make your attack, that your body will be 'off-line'. So you & your opponent start circling, moving back and forth, side to side, to find just the right moment to make your attack. Whilst you are planning your attack you have to be aware of your own defence - if your opponent makes their strike before your own, you need to have a counter ready, whether through parry & riposte or taking your body 'off-line', depending on the situation. If you were to fight defensively you might create a false opening, such as exposing a flank subtly, to invite an attack which you can counter with ease - it's amazing how often people tend to fall for that sort of thing."

see how easily the same logic applies?  It's a duel - your first goal is to stay alive.  Hurting the opponent comes second.
Footwork, subtle movements, 'reading' your opponent from exploratory blows, feinting, body position....  These apply for any open combat or duel. 

(In modern sport fencing, there's a restriction on footwork and body position due to having to remain inside a 'corridor' (don't know how else to describe it in English).  A few guys used to fight without this rule, for fun and demonstration purposes, and you see a fight that is very mobile, very physical - the fighters move like boxers, instead of being stuck in their straight lines.)

Now, rapier fighting is different to sword/shield fighting because you have no shield.  Also, in most post-1700 cases, you have little or no armour.

However, what's the difference between a rapier-armed dragoon in 1630 (with a steel back-and-breast) and a broadsword-wielding Swadian Footman wearing mail, but without a shield?

The rapier is more likely to score in the thrust, but less likely to score in the swing.  The main difference will be that instead of 1 thrust and 3 swing animations, the game would benifit from multiple thrust animations/options.

This however is the case in native: More thrust attacks would be better.


 
To chime in once again;

It is similar to using any other weapon in a 1-1 situation but the main factor with rapiers is how quickly you can shift 'em. An explosive lunge, as sudden as it is quick, can land a hit as quickly as doing the same with a modern fencing foil. As the guards are 'springboards' for your attack there is minimum time between preparing to attack and actually launching the strike. By the 1620s, when Capo Ferro's style was starting to become popular, the majority of exchanges were thrusts due to the lack of armour worn & the speed of the strike combined with longer blades. Just the age old rule of 'Point beats Edge'. With older styles, where the emphasis was on the cut instead of a thrust, they look sluggish compared to the potential speed & dynamic of later rapier fighting.

With such speed at your, and your opponents, command, as well as the various guards minimising your preperation time, you have to concentrate far more on even the slightest, most subtle shifts in weight, position, stance and so on, because in the blink of an eye you could end up with a rapier point in your neck/between your ribs/in your groin/in your eye.
 
I'm not entirely sure that you could say the earlier traditions (guessing that you're referring to sword and buckler or longsword) emphasized the cut over the thrust. They spend plenty of time dealing with both. I believe that the question is more of focus. The later variations of the rapier in the civilian context would generally be hard pressed to inflict incapacitating wounds with a cutting stroke, so they focus mainly on the use of the point. The earlier swords have more options.

I also disagree quite strongly on the sluggishness. Cuts can be deceptively fast with proper body mechanics and form, and unlike thrusts they're rather less dependent on precise targeting for immediate incapacitation.
 
What I meant was that the emphasis with earlier rapier styles was on cuts as well as lunges to deliver the killing blow, though the cut was the preferred method. di Grassi's treatise was based upon taking the body offline whilst delivering the fatal blow. His guards, close in to the body, allow for quicker preperation of attack as well as increasing the amount of power from the pelvis & upper body with a smaller body movement. By contrast, Capo Ferro's guards were looser, the weapons held further away from the body to increase the time the fighter had to deflect an opponents attack as well as decreasing the range for a thrust or lunge. By Capo Ferro's time the weapons were getting longer and were becoming a status symbol for the rich. Bit like mobile phones today - original ones were big, heavy, practical, but now they far fancier due to the mass interest in them especially from those with the money to spend on the latest.

When it comes to later rapiers & cutting, they're more than capable of incapacitating deadly wounds with a cut. The top 6 inches of blade would be sharpened and because of the weapons length, combined with momentum from the swing, it should open flesh without too much trouble. Anecdote I like to bring up every so often is whilst fencing with rapiers I was deafened in my left ear for a week thanks to recieving a cut to my mask from an opponents cut. Even if the edge is not sharpened a rapier is still a metal club, to all intent and purpose, and will still damage the body.

As for the 'sluggishness' thing, weapons develop for a reason. If a cut with a rapier was far more effective than a thrust, rapiers would have developed further along that line, but the sheer speed of a thrust and how deadly it can be steered rapiers & swords in general in that direction, hence why the two of the main Classical Fencing & Modern Sports Fencing weapons are both based on thrusts & lunges. Cuts can be deadly, can be fast, well hidden with body movements, as well as being precise in the hands of a good swordsman, but I'd bet on a thrust over a cut anyway.
 

Dragomir

Knight
WB
I'm a historical re-enactor (viking), and I must say that dual wield is really practical and succesful. But it need's a lot of skill. Using a sword and axe is imo the best combination, holding axe vertically at my side allows me to succesfully parry oponent's cuts, on the other side I'm parrying with sword. But, when the opponent is holding a shield, I can use my axe as a hook, to pull the shield and hit my opponent, or give a chance to the spearman standing next to me. I know it's not real fighting, but the weapons are full metal, and the fights are brutal, it is realistic. And it's the best way to try dual wielding out. It shouldn't be used very often, but in some situations it's effective as hell.
 
2 am post here, so forgive me for any incoherent rambling bits. :razz:

I really don't buy that assertion. To my knowledge, military 'rapiers' (more of broadswords and backswords with rapier-style hilt furniture) still relied greatly on the cut, so we'll leave that out for now. Civilian ones were optimized for a different context and had blade geometry that was was sub-optimal for the cut. That is not to say that they cannot cut or wound; as you said, a steel blade is still a steel blade, but it doesn't have the mass distribution necessary for a proper incapacitating blow like the ones that a longsword or a sidesword can deliver. There were also sword and buckler systems that existed concurrently with the rapier which saw rather more military use, and those definitely involved a great number of percussive blows with the edge.

I don't know if you've done longsword or sword and buckler, but a half-arsed whack with a rebated steel arming sword or longsword can put a great big crease in the mesh of a fencing mask. Even a proper steel helmet isn't proof against such hits.
 
Top Bottom