What's with the dual wield hate?

[FRANK_THE_TANK]

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.

[Kafein]

Quick, hide before cmp takes your "super-possible" and beats the living crap out of you with it!

Valuable reply award goes to Paul.


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.


Actually, we could even introduce cloaks as usable 2nd hand weapons. The cloak and rapier fighting style fits in the mod's time period.

[Angantyr]

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?

[XyNox]

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 ?

[Angantyr]

To judge by the to my best knowledge complete absence of support for this in the historical record it seems it has never been judged really effective by anyone.

But despite this it may have occurred of course, but never to a degree where it has been chronicled or evolved into a real fighting style.

There may also be proof of some obscure warrior monk or something using it somewhere, but I've never heard about it.

[Patoson]

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 ?

Don't bother. It's no use arguing with know-it-alls.

[Dooz]

Since people post without reading the op, I'll say again here on the second page that "not historically accurate" or "unrealistic" are not valid arguments. 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.

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.

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.

[Bobthehero]

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.

Someone is making a dual wielding script for Warband as I type this, so not impossible.

However unrealistic if we stick to a certain time frame (and don't go and include some obscur African tribe into the mix)

Edit:

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.

Its a pretty good positon to exclude stuff from a time frame, otherwise we could end up with firearms and flak jackets.

Now for the first part, find me an example of dual wielding being used in the right time frame DURING A BATTLE, not silly civilian dueling, find me a proper battle where people used a weapon in each hand.

[Dooz]

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?

[_Tak_]

it is possible to make dual wield weapons such as 2 swords, you can still block with it. But it must become a shield while the weapon is 1 handed, and the shield needs a model from a sword.

Example:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
 

P.S @ The sword looks ugly i know, thats because i done something with it

[Bobthehero]

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?

But they all existed at one point, unlike dual wielding on the battlefield.

[Dooz]

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 opponent’s 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 doesn’t 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/

That being said, lets not pretend to know what exactly did or didn't go on on a medieval battlefield hundreds of years ago, or that crpg is a medieval simulator. Realize that we're not talking about adding new weapons that did not exist during a certain time frame, we're talking about using some existing weapons in a certain way. By what authority can this be proven impossible? Not very popular, not practical, not the best idea in the world, fine. Who cares? It's crpg. Look around you. Most of what goes on fits the bill. Doesn't make it impossible.

So if we're not talking about adding new weapons, and only a gameplay mechanic, then lets talk about some other gameplay mechanics that are not historically accurate or realistic. No matter how much you train, you can't make your shield less likely to break through sheer force of will or cover more physical space around you. Get rid of shield skill. No matter how hard you train, you can't force yourself to resist more blows to the head and survive, get rid of ironflesh. People in heavy armors should not be able to jump, or move nearly as fast as they do compared to others, slow them down greatly. What examples in history do we have of lone pikemen jumping through the air and stabbing an opponent in the face from mere inches, do not allow pikes to connect unless they are as far away from the target as realistic to do so. There are more, because this is a game.

And just for fun, here are some intelligent people discussing the topic on a relevant forum.
http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8529&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=384a3aeee3cd84461f6e1c55211a203f

[Bobthehero]

Forcefield of the shield represents the skill of the user to move his shield around to block stuff.

You could technically keep your shield in better condition the more you're used to it, just knowing how to angle it to reduce the stress of the blow, kinde stretched, but you're ok with that, right?

As for all the thing about armor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4

Watch, learn.

I wish with all my heart that they fix the pike.

Its a medieval combat simulator with a bunch of of different factions and its got video game limitation, doesn't mean you should add stuff that was there ''just because its cool''

[Dooz]

How about just because it's possible? (and adds a new dimension to the game)

[Paul]

Wat? I'm pretty sure someone with a lot experience with fighting with a shield can prevent damage to it to a certain degree with adjusting the blocking/parrying angle and thus deflecting a blow instead of letting the shield be hit frontally. Same for the increased coverage for someone with automated shielding reflexes.

The ironflesh skill can be interpreted like knowing how to "brace" oneself or doing minimal dodging to minimize the damage from an impact just like a boxer who can take a would-be knockout blow with relatively low damage if he sees it coming. Although then the ironflesh skill should probalby not be active when getting hit from behind.