Dual-wield weapons?

[Staubkappe]

Is anybody aware of an answer to this?
Would love to play 2 short swords or daggers instead of a heavy weapon.
Since many question are asked multiple times in this forum i would like to apologize if this question has already beens answered, even tho i did not find it.

[Mr.Hmm]

Um.. i dont think you will be able to dual wield weapons.

But i am not sure either :(

[Gunfreak]

If there is dual wield it will only be with dagger/sword. Duel wielding two short swords isn't very realistic.

[LTCrabcake]

Seeing as daggers are only a stealth weapon. Meaning you cannot use them in combat. I doubt you could dual wield them. Swords back then were very heavy unlike the cutlesses that pirates dual wielded. Also how the combat system works would make dual wielding a very confusing experience.

[Staubkappe]

Well, I also doubt dual wield is a thing but it would still be cool.

Originally posted by Gunfreak:

Dual wielding two short swords isn't very realistic.

Altough this sums it all up :D

[Brygun]

I;ve not seen it in the demo beta play throughs

Though I do understand some folks want to see it and if thats your thing its your thing. Here are some things about why its not really seen in history.

It wasn't really done in period. I've been in medieval clubs where they do group fighting and 2-sticks show up but really aren't period either. The thing is our club has safety regulations for thrown and shooting gear such that they aren't really safe to use at the power levels that give them the ranges.

In historic times every has a spear, axe, dagger (or gumby with a pommel) plus large numbers of archers (longbow or crossbow). So to survive the ranged attacks the rich wore plate armor and now used powerful two handed weapons to hurt other heavy armor folks. Meanwhile the poor used shields to survive the volleys so only had one hand free for usually an affordable spear.

Try finding a period fighting manual with 2-weapons. I'm not aware of one. It might show up as a one or two pages out of 40 thing showing how it was known but not thought of as effective.

One of the things many games and movies get wrong is the body mechanics. The two hands are not fully indepedent. To generate substantial power like what is needed for even lightly armored opponents you need to use your torso and legs. Likewise most games also disallow smashing with the shield. The medieval club I mentioned spefically disallows sheild striking.

So things in period went like this:

2 swords means you get impaled by thrown spears or pin cushioned with arros

Sword and shield means you don't die to ranged weapons and still have to things to hit with, the sword and the shield.

Shield and spear is really good for standing in a shieldwall with other buddies espically since the spear gives reach. Oh hey, if you see someone not paying attention or have 2 swords you can kill them by throwing your spear.

Heavy armored people were pretty safe from ranged and from one handed weapons so two weapon users couldn't them. You need a battlefield weapon like a pole axe, dane axe or long spear to get through the rich people's heavy armor.


Again, I understand some folks have 2 weapons as their play style. If you are okay that it isn't historical but a fun for you alternative we're chill.

[Brygun]

A video on fencing, post Henry's period, dual wielding also comments on its rarity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc8akxwI56s


Video by Matt Easton on scholagladiatoria talking about these things
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rewvqm4pdw

[Staubkappe]

Originally posted by Brygun:

I;ve not seen it in the demo beta play throughs

Though I do understand some folks want to see it and if thats your thing its your thing. Here are some things about why its not really seen in history.

It wasn't really done in period. I've been in medieval clubs where they do group fighting and 2-sticks show up but really aren't period either. The thing is our club has safety regulations for thrown and shooting gear such that they aren't really safe to use at the power levels that give them the ranges.

In historic times every has a spear, axe, dagger (or gumby with a pommel) plus large numbers of archers (longbow or crossbow). So to survive the ranged attacks the rich wore plate armor and now used powerful two handed weapons to hurt other heavy armor folks. Meanwhile the poor used shields to survive the volleys so only had one hand free for usually an affordable spear.

Try finding a period fighting manual with 2-weapons. I'm not aware of one. It might show up as a one or two pages out of 40 thing showing how it was known but not thought of as effective.

One of the things many games and movies get wrong is the body mechanics. The two hands are not fully indepedent. To generate substantial power like what is needed for even lightly armored opponents you need to use your torso and legs. Likewise most games also disallow smashing with the shield. The medieval club I mentioned spefically disallows sheild striking.

So things in period went like this:

2 swords means you get impaled by thrown spears or pin cushioned with arros

Sword and shield means you don't die to ranged weapons and still have to things to hit with, the sword and the shield.

Shield and spear is really good for standing in a shieldwall with other buddies espically since the spear gives reach. Oh hey, if you see someone not paying attention or have 2 swords you can kill them by throwing your spear.

Heavy armored people were pretty safe from ranged and from one handed weapons so two weapon users couldn't them. You need a battlefield weapon like a pole axe, dane axe or long spear to get through the rich people's heavy armor.


Again, I understand some folks have 2 weapons as their play style. If you are okay that it isn't historical but a fun for you alternative we're chill.

Thanks for the effort put into this answer.
I am aware of the fact its historical ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ to use 2 swords, especially during that time.
And I dont even know if I would enjoy using it in the game since it takes parts of the realism and also your combat ability away, as you already stated.
Still it would be cool to escape that realism at some times to just try things out (and propably die while doing so since it is not effective)

[Staubkappe]

Originally posted by Brygun:

A video on fencing, post Henry's period, dual wielding also comments on its rarity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc8akxwI56s

I am aware there are certain fighting techniques using dual wield.
For example Filipino Fighting Arts/Martial Arts.
We use 2 sticks or 2 daggers as category of armament. It is hard to learn and hard to control precisely but can be effective.
But FFA was meant to be used against the spanish soldiers when they arrived at the Phillipines and thus not against real armies during a big war. A wooden shield would not have protected them from bullets either thus a second weapon was a valid option.

[Gunfreak]

Originally posted by LTCrabcake:

Seeing as daggers are only a stealth weapon. Meaning you cannot use them in combat. I doubt you could dual wield them. Swords back then were very heavy unlike the cutlesses that pirates dual wielded. Also how the combat system works would make dual wielding a very confusing experience.

One handed swords have always weighted about the same, viking sword about 1.1-1.3kg.
Knightly sword/arming sword (these would be typical swords used in the game) also about 1.1-1.3kg, cutlass would weigh about the same, even a rapier like the three musketeers used would way around 1kg.

[Vladimiś]

@LTCrabcake Swords are not that heavy, even things as big as "legendary" german zweihanders weight only 3 kilos. Problem is weight distribution

[Bijat]

Originally posted by LTCrabcake:

Seeing as daggers are only a stealth weapon. Meaning you cannot use them in combat. I doubt you could dual wield them. Swords back then were very heavy unlike the cutlesses that pirates dual wielded. Also how the combat system works would make dual wielding a very confusing experience.

Most swords historicaly was pritty similar weight...between 1-2kg. Some later cutlasses sure is a little bit lighter...They did not dual wield cutlasses tho...

The only dual wield ppl rly did historicaly was Rapier + parrying dagger. The dagger was only used for defense like the name say. It also was only a civil weapon combo that you coud easy carry in towns etc and when attackers mainly did not have any armor.

There is a few combos with other sword + dagger but in dark ages / early middle ages if you did not have a shield you normaly switched to two handed or simply used a pose with only using one hand for the sword.

[Brygun]

Originally posted by Staubkappe:

Thanks for the effort put into this answer.

I'm glad you appreciate the effort and information. Sometimes I do things in game inaccurate but for fun too. In Fallout 4 one weapon a laugh at using is a submachine gun with a higher rate of fire by reducing the bullet size yet the smaller bullets get the same boost from the explosive perk. Its kinda silly but fun for a game. Also good against swarms of crawling and flying bugs it turns out. Somestimes I like accuracy, sometimes realism, sometimes both. Its like enjoying peanutbutter and sometimes jam and sometimes you have a peanut butter and jam sandwhich.

[Brygun]

Originally posted by Staubkappe:

But FFA was meant to be used against the spanish soldiers when they arrived at the Phillipines and thus not against real armies during a big war. A wooden shield would not have protected them from bullets either thus a second weapon was a valid option.

"Context" - Matt Easton

Actually I stuided Kali Escrima (FFA) for about a year or so do and can manage a decent two stick spin Isumi Wali (spelling likely horrible on that).

I believe by the time of the Spanish arrive in the Filipines they are into the gunpowder era. Armor was reduced but still present as rates of fire were slow, range short and accuracy a general point of debate. Soldiers would likely have had metal helmets and torso front plates that would resist the Filipino machete. The limbs and back being still at risk. Though the Flipino did lose that fight so it does also while used dual wielding wasn't the ultimate answer. Huge technology differences depreciated melee fighting.

The other context for the Philipines is climate. It is damn hot. Being a hot ocean island its also pretty humid. Wearing heavy clothing isn't really a thing for most of the people most of the time. In that context machetes, or other slashing weapons, can do pretty good.

[Brygun]

Originally posted by LTCrabcake:

... if you did not have a shield you normaly switched to two handed or simply used a pose with only using one hand for the sword.

Or you got shot with arrows, bolts or spears for want of a shield. :-P

[Bijat]

Originally posted by Brygun:

Originally posted by Staubkappe:

Thanks for the effort put into this answer.

I'm glad you appreciate the effort and information. Sometimes I do things in game inaccurate but for fun too. In Fallout 4 one weapon a laugh at using is a submachine gun with a higher rate of fire by reducing the bullet size yet the smaller bullets get the same boost from the explosive perk. Its kinda silly but fun for a game. Also good against swarms of crawling and flying bugs it turns out. Somestimes I like accuracy, sometimes realism, sometimes both. Its like enjoying peanutbutter and sometimes jam and sometimes you have a peanut butter and jam sandwhich.

Totaly agree, aslong it fits with what th game is going for its good stuff =).

Like playing mario 64 and using start to lokc up stuff is 100% fine but if u needed starts to unlock doors here i woud 100% get pissed off xD