Dual wielding?

[Dutch Viking]

I'm thinking of buying this game but I'm a huge Viking fan so I would like to base my playstyle around them. Can you dual wield? I like a sword and small axe.

[Hellzcatz]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Friendly:

You must mean the vikings show. Prepare for a bombardment of history buffs going mental at you.

HAHAHAHAHHA

Pretty much! LOL

[Gummiel]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Underprivileged White Male:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Gummiel:

I did but your started out with saying you are confused by people that say "no one ever dual wielded ever."
So this sets the overall premise of your posts. And when people state that they are in 99% of cases talking about dual wielding 2 full sized weapons and attacking with them both, most ppl saying that will gladly acknowledge that there is benefits to a dagger of similar sized weapons in terms of defence, something I directly stated in my last post as well (and thus I did in fact indirectly address your dirk example as that would fall into the category, so who is it that is not reading the others post agains exaclty?). It is not however always strickly better, depending on the exact situation. Also nowhere did you state you were talking explusively against a shielded enemy, hence why I gave multiple common options, ofc you wont (or at least shouldn't) be halfswording against a shield, depending on the type of shield and weapon the enemy have and other factors both grabling and murderstrokes are options that could be usefull, depending on the situation maybe more or less than a dagger of similar.

That said ANY situation where you lost your shield against a shielded enemy, you will not have the option to pikc up ANYTHING from the ground, the seconds you do, the enemy will 100% kill/knock you out while you are bending down, so you are MUCH better off keep fighting with your single weapon and the empty hand the best you can, untill you can get a break. And once you have that break the chance of there not being a SINGLE usefull shield nearby to pick up or a spare fresh one from your supply train is next to 0%. So basically you are not going to be getting any new equipment while you are actively engaged in the fighting, and once you are off from the active engagement you are much better off actually getting a proper shield over a dagger or similar offhand weapon

I can certainly pull a dagger from my belt though can I not?

Sure you could I geuss, but then I would qeustion why you opted for a dagger as your sidearm in the belt over a buckler or similar. For the purpose of defence a buckler would be much better to have been the pick (but not near as good as a shield ofc, though it can have some amazing offensive potential as well as long as you are in a strickly 1v1 situation, any group fighting or threats from arrows neither a dagger or buckler would be very usefull). Heck if we are talking a battlefield I would rather NOT have an arming sword as my main weapon in the first place, that should be the weapon in your belt at best. 1handed swords in general are either for ease of carrying around in day to day life, for self-defence, or as sidearm on a battlefield, becasue they are versatile and easy to carry, but they are not particularly good at any one thing, and on a battlefield you would want a weapon that is good at a particular thing, not something that is meh at a lot of things
(also as a sidenote since this is a tread on the bannerlord forum, due to the nature of the game I am naturally thinking about battlefield scenaries, and less about the 1v1 situations, though I clearly have thrown in a few throughts here and there on the 1v1's as well)

[Underprivileged White Male]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Gummiel:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Underprivileged White Male:

I can certainly pull a dagger from my belt though can I not?

Sure you could I geuss, but then I would qeustion why you opted for a dagger as your sidearm in the belt over a buckler or similar. For the purpose of defence a buckler would be much better to have been the pick (but not near as good as a shield ofc, though it can have some amazing offensive potential as well as long as you are in a strickly 1v1 situation, any group fighting or threats from arrows neither a dagger or buckler would be very usefull). Heck if we are talking a battlefield I would rather NOT have an arming sword as my main weapon in the first place, that should be the weapon in your belt at best. 1handed swords in general are either for ease of carrying around in day to day life, for self-defence, or as sidearm on a battlefield, becasue they are versatile and easy to carry, but they are not particularly good at any one thing, and on a battlefield you would want a weapon that is good at a particular thing, not something that is meh at a lot of things
(also as a sidenote since this is a tread on the bannerlord forum, due to the nature of the game I am naturally thinking about battlefield scenaries, and less about the 1v1 situations, though I clearly have thrown in a few throughts here and there on the 1v1's as well)

On the battlefield logically I'd want to be 100 miles away in a keep while my commanders and soldiers do the fighting for me. Sadly it's not really an option in M&B.

So where does that leave us? With a video game. In a video game I'd always side with the more fun option. But just like the game doesn't allow me to take the logical option and give orders from safety it also doesn't allow the use of my left hand for things it obviously is more than capable of doing. It's not an argument about what the "best" option is, it's an argument about whether you could do it, and whether it was ever done, and it certainly was just like people have used swords to cut branches, eaten horse meat, and beaten people to death with stones. It doesn't need to be the best option, but options are always nice to have.

If implemented correctly it wouldn't be very good. For the love of God though I do like to have some choices in my gaming. Otherwise I may was well watch someone else play the game. I mean if we were just going to always pick the "best" option then everyone should just 2k stack horse archers and call it a day.

[ViiK]

Then why no add gunpowder weapons, auto-loading crossbows, handbombs, greekfire, other animals than horses as mounts. But why stop there, let's just DEMAND for any fun thing to be added into the base game, not like all that can be added with mods or something.

[Underprivileged White Male]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από ViiK:

Then why no add gunpowder weapons, auto-loading crossbows, handbombs, greekfire, other animals than horses as mounts. But why stop there, let's just DEMAND for any fun thing to be added into the base game, not like all that can be added with mods or something.

They didn't have those things during this time period. They did have 2 hands though....

Well most of them.

[ViiK]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Underprivileged White Male:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από ViiK:

Then why no add gunpowder weapons, auto-loading crossbows, handbombs, greekfire, other animals than horses as mounts. But why stop there, let's just DEMAND for any fun thing to be added into the base game, not like all that can be added with mods or something.

They didn't have those things during this time period. They did have 2 hands though....

Well most of them.

Great argument... do you have some proof of such claim?

Like what an actual ... you want to add dual welding, in a timeline where shields where a principal defense and neither targe or fencing daggers exist even as a concept. But a gunpowder, which have more historical evidence to exist before 10th century, is somehow "They didn't have those things". Auto-loading crossbows existed too, just not in europe. Handbombs where a thing back in ancient greece. Raindeer for example where used extensively as mounts.

And why they hell are you bringing up historical plausibility if you yourself disregard it and ask to add dual welding because it's fun. What kind of hypocrisy is this? lol

[Prionato]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Rage:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από RDADutch Grenadier:

I'm thinking of buying this game but I'm a huge Viking fan so I would like to base my playstyle around them. Can you dual wield? I like a sword and small axe.

you can't, though there are viking type factions with huge round shields, nobody dual wielded in battle in all of history

arrows don't do damage on heavily armored infantry but they do kill them on this game so... it's a videogame and if the company or any modder decides to implement dual wield probably it's gonna be fun to test ^^

[lar unuruur]

no dual wield in this game so far.
and except from movies for flashy moves, dw is total bs.

[GreatPalm]

what can dual wield do? 2h can deflect arrows now, so dual wield will send them back to shooter?

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Underprivileged White Male:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Gummiel:

Sure you could I geuss, but then I would qeustion why you opted for a dagger as your sidearm in the belt over a buckler or similar. For the purpose of defence a buckler would be much better to have been the pick (but not near as good as a shield ofc, though it can have some amazing offensive potential as well as long as you are in a strickly 1v1 situation, any group fighting or threats from arrows neither a dagger or buckler would be very usefull). Heck if we are talking a battlefield I would rather NOT have an arming sword as my main weapon in the first place, that should be the weapon in your belt at best. 1handed swords in general are either for ease of carrying around in day to day life, for self-defence, or as sidearm on a battlefield, becasue they are versatile and easy to carry, but they are not particularly good at any one thing, and on a battlefield you would want a weapon that is good at a particular thing, not something that is meh at a lot of things
(also as a sidenote since this is a tread on the bannerlord forum, due to the nature of the game I am naturally thinking about battlefield scenaries, and less about the 1v1 situations, though I clearly have thrown in a few throughts here and there on the 1v1's as well)

On the battlefield logically I'd want to be 100 miles away in a keep while my commanders and soldiers do the fighting for me. Sadly it's not really an option in M&B.

So where does that leave us? With a video game. In a video game I'd always side with the more fun option. But just like the game doesn't allow me to take the logical option and give orders from safety it also doesn't allow the use of my left hand for things it obviously is more than capable of doing. It's not an argument about what the "best" option is, it's an argument about whether you could do it, and whether it was ever done, and it certainly was just like people have used swords to cut branches, eaten horse meat, and beaten people to death with stones. It doesn't need to be the best option, but options are always nice to have.

If implemented correctly it wouldn't be very good. For the love of God though I do like to have some choices in my gaming. Otherwise I may was well watch someone else play the game. I mean if we were just going to always pick the "best" option then everyone should just 2k stack horse archers and call it a day.

devs cannot fix basic things lol, 'why no dual wield' is really strange question

[Tenshin51]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Prionato:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Rage:

you can't, though there are viking type factions with huge round shields, nobody dual wielded in battle in all of history

arrows don't do damage on heavily armored infantry but they do kill them on this game so... it's a videogame and if the company or any modder decides to implement dual wield probably it's gonna be fun to test ^^

Dual wielding exist but it's a wrong timeline and wrong culture of martial arts. Timeline in the game is somewhat Early Byzantine period with mix and match historical reference and culture.
Mostly Dual wield use rapier and dagger to dual wield. Dual wielding is mostly an exhibition match.

It will be cool some modder could implement this. Some modder created a rock sling. Hopefully the devs will add a rock sling in the game.

Regarding armor I strongly agreed. That is the point of an armor but it depends what kind of projectile weapon. Also armor should impede sensory like Kingdom Come Deliverance.

[Ulfkarl]

vikings never did dual wielding, grow up kiddo

[Cquarto91 Warband Mod Archiver]

Maybe as mod.

[Morkonan]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Dutch Viking:

I'm thinking of buying this game but I'm a huge Viking fan so I would like to base my playstyle around them. Can you dual wield? I like a sword and small axe.

First, as has been said, "No."

Second - Nice necro, everyone.

Third - This is not as easy as it sounds...


Bannerlord obeys the spirit of the Warband franchise, which means that everything the player can do the enemy can do as well. (Except "jump." AI units don't understand "jump.")

Bannerlord combat is physicality based. That means that the physical representation of the weapons, armor, and attacks is accurately modeled in-game. The force delivered to a target is accurately, more or less, modeled based upon the velocity of the contacting surface of the weapon, the damage type, and the reistance/protection of the surface being struck at the point of contact - Bannerlord models specific body parts and their protection for damage. It is physically accurate within it's own narrowly defined universe.

A player "dual-wielding" can choose which weapon to attack with in a "realistic" combat model. In Bannerlord, it can not be a "button press combo." That is outside the spirit of Bannerlord combat. So, that constant "choice" must be presents - Left or right.

Each attack can be set up and manipulated by the player using physically accurate manipulation of their weapon's velocity - Torso-turning makes for stronger attacks. It is accurately modeled within it's own limited capability. Everything in the game relies on this kind of player manipulation. AI units don't necessarily do this very well. But, somewhere in there, there appears to be some effort made there. (Maybe just a coincidence.)

Choices are easy for the player to make, but not so easy for an AI unless it's some "canned" attack animation. With multiple weapons, how would that be polished so it was efficient to calculate in terms of the appearance of AI choice? And, if it was, then what? Left, Right, Left, Right, Right, Left? The predictability would make circle-strafing look even more ridiculously easy than it already is. Keep in mind, every decision the player can make in a physical model must be allowed to the AI. That's hundreds of individual combat "decisions" being made in any one battle. (A shield-bash is basically a canned animated attack, equivalent of a "button press attack." AFAIK, it doesn't have multiple animation choices that have to be made. (Upper/lower/side/thrust/etc) It just "is.")

And, how does the AI figure out how to use these weapons effectively? AI units basically judge "distance to target" and "weapon reach" in melee combat choices. If they've got a shorter weapon, they'll seek to close with the target. What happens, then, if they have one longer and one shorter weapon? Will they dance? Obviously, a more sophisticated series of choices must be made in that case. And, maybe there could be battles with fifty such AI opponents, but probably not a thousand. "Big Battles" are a very high Bannerlord development priority. (It's the most important feature of Bannerlord when it is compared to other titles in the Warband franchise. No other gameplay mechanic the player would engage with was more important to develop than that single feature.)

Most fans of the franchise are fairly stodgy "purists" regarding dual-wielding. They'd actually be less inclined to look favorably on Bannerlord if it allowed it.

This is also a very old Warband argument. The very final answer as far as TW and the franchise goes has always been a very firm "No." In the past, mods have tried to do this, but the accessible mechanics in the game do not support it very well. (For good reasons, since it'd throw the Unit AI out the window in confusion.)

PS: IMO and AFAIK :)

[Shade]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Ragey:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από RDADutch Grenadier:

I'm thinking of buying this game but I'm a huge Viking fan so I would like to base my playstyle around them. Can you dual wield? I like a sword and small axe.

you can't, though there are viking type factions with huge round shields, nobody dual wielded in battle in all of history

You CLEARLY don't know your history, just throwing out bs that is not FACT. Dual wield was definitely used throughout history of battles in many cultures. Read a book

[Shade]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Ulfkarl:

vikings never did dual wielding, grow up kiddo

Actually they did. Most not initially, but if their shield broke then usually they would pull out another axe/blade. Read a book and learn something before sounding dumb... KIDDO. You little girls look so pathetic when you talk about what you don't know.