Why do you say it's unrealistic, if we've seen it in movies?
Why do you say it's unrealistic, if we've seen it in movies?lol, good one.
Quick, hide before cmp takes your "super-possible" and beats the living crap out of you with it!
It actually is historically accurate. A whole mess of cultures and warriors have duel wield weapons in one form or another. It won't however work with this engine and this game. It won't work because either it takes away your ability to block or just functions as a shield.I've never ever heard about this, source please?
I have no historical data about this being unrealistic or not but ... you wanna tell me in centuries of war and developement of fighting arts there was at NO time some nation/army/militaristic group that got the idea of dual wielding weapons ?
It's okay from a realism point of view within the current borders of the mod (only if limited to dagger/1h combos though). But completely out of the scope of a mod like cRPG.
It actually is historically accurate. A whole mess of cultures and warriors have duel wield weapons in one form or another. It won't however work with this engine and this game. It won't work because either it takes away your ability to block or just functions as a shield.
Use google to find examples of it being used in history, and use your head ( :?) to realize that it's no less realistic than anything else that goes on in crpg.
Meaning even if dual wielding was ever used, it wasn't during the "time period" of crpg? I'dunno, that seems like a pretty weak reason not to. How much stock can you really put into what time period all these random chaotic battles with all sorts of mishmashed troops are taking place in, and what does or doesn't belong, at least loosely? I think it's a lot easier to say guns don't belong for example, than using the weapons that already exist in a certain way. Doesn't seem like an irrefutable position.
Just as soon as you find me an example of samurais fighting with morningstars alongside plated knights with katanas and every other combination of arms, armor, fighting style, aesthetic, etc. you wanna pick from a typical crpg battle.
My point throughout has been that any argument you can make to exclude dual wielding, is an argument you can make to exclude most other things from the game. And since that would leave nothing, we shouldn't do so. And if we're not doing so for any other aspect of the mod, why does the buck stop at dual wielding?
Though the technique of two-weapon fighting went out of style as single blade weapons and techniques evolved, it is still a central part of the history of fencing. Two-weapon, or dual wield, combat was common in the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance period in Europe. There are a number different weapons that were wielded in the off-hand. The Main Gauche (French for left hand) was a small parrying dagger, while the notched sword breaker was a longer dagger that was designed to catch the blade of an opponents sword. There are several myths about heroes and warriors wielding two swords of equal size, but these are often exaggerated, as a consistent technique for wielding two heavy weapons just doesnt exist.
Though modern fencing is now based around a primary weapon, there are still a few fencing schools that allow the use of two weapons. The main exception is Japanese kendo where two weapons of different size are still allowed in competition; though this is rare.
http://www.medievalweaponinfo.com/medieval/58-two-weapon-fighting/ (http://www.medievalweaponinfo.com/medieval/58-two-weapon-fighting/)
Although then the ironflesh skill should probalby not be active when getting hit from behind.
Don't bother. It's no use arguing with know-it-alls.
we sure have a lot more history professors and time travelers in the community than I would have imagined. :mrgreen:It is ironic that it is you who are making things up and us who are only asking for sources who are the 'know-it-alls', 'history professors' and 'time travellers'.
Meaning even if dual wielding was ever used, it wasn't during the "time period" of crpg? I'dunno, that seems like a pretty weak reason not to. How much stock can you really put into what time period all these random chaotic battles with all sorts of mishmashed troops are taking place in, and what does or doesn't belong, at least loosely? I think it's a lot easier to say guns don't belong for example, than using the weapons that already exist in a certain way. Doesn't seem like an irrefutable position.
It is ironic that it is you who are making things up and us who are only asking for sources who are the 'know-it-alls', 'history professors' and 'time travellers'.
But it is very simple, please just present some sources and we'll talk about them, there isn't much point in discussing that which until then only exist in your head.
BUT: Looking at the 1h weapons equipment page or any other, I see tons of weapons that are not used other than for teh lulz. Simply because they are not as effective as other ones. "Its not historicly accurate" sounds like implying that people back then didnt "unlock" the ability yet to be able to think about puting one weapon in each hand.
They had the ability to use dual wielding, but it was not only fairly ineffective, was a sure sure way to get you killed. Their 2nd second so to speak was the shield, which they used in a number of offensive and defensive way.
Musashi created and perfected a two-sword kenjutsu technique called niten'ichi (二天一, "two heavens as one") or nitōichi (二刀一, "two swords as one") or "Ni-Ten Ichi Ryu" (A Kongen Buddhist Sutra refers to the two heavens as the two guardians of Buddha). In this technique, the swordsman uses both a large sword, and a "companion sword" at the same time, such as a katana with a wakizashi. Although he had mastership in this style of two swords, he most commonly used a katana in duels.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi)