Dual-Wielding

Why limit it to dual wielding? ->

Why don't you post this in the Elemental Ideas forum, CapnWinky. If you do I'll add it to our Comprehensive Ideas List.

right now the "slot" system is shaky at best.  (in theory you can have x number of rings or accessories right now. only 1 weapon and a shield.   no 2 handed weapons or bow and arrow).   I can't imagine duel-wielding not making it in by release.  It shouldn't be any more complicated than having different stats and animations for all the weapons as it is (you don't fight with a spear as you do an axe, and you can use a sword either way).  

I would also like to have the ability to give special monsters or mutants (chaos channels ftw) extra limbs, and as a result extra limb related uses like extra weapons or rings.

Its not like people won't mod it into the game even if it isn't in on release

Good idea for a medium to high level Fallen spell. Perhaps "Mutate Monster" or "Mutate Minion". I'm going to start making custom Spells as soon as we get a build capable of doing so. Then the Modding will start in earnest. If things are as easy as they let on to be we'll have fulling working Mods ready for the "Official" release day.

I can't imagine that it will remain "can hold a weapon in one hand and a shield in the other"  because that seriously limits the potential for variety in units.  Why would you ever make units without shields, in that situation?

Well, if you have foot-knights, I.E. foot soldiers in full plate. If armed with a sword And shield they would have higher defense then when armed with two swords. Armed with two swords though will have slightly less defense with slightly increased offense.

Mounted Knights in Full armor with two swords could be used for a mobile fast attack unit. Get in, do damage, and back off before you're killed.

Just some thoughts.

What his saying is if you cannot have dual wielding and one of the hand slots is only for shields than what would be the point of having anything other than shielded units. His logic is solid but some minor advantages still may be speed and ofcourse reduced cost/time of building the unit.

Ahh, yes. I didn't realize that's what he meant. As in if that's all the second hand can do, period.

Yes, what  I am saying is that the current system encourages you to create every unit with a shield.  If you can't put anything other than a shield there, why leave it blank?  The minimal build-time and cost penalties are really not as much of a tactical choice as choosing to make brutes with 2handers or swordsmen with two swords, Or heavy infantry with tower shields...

Yes I see now. Excelent idea and good points indeed.

yeah... that was my point.   It won't stay that way.

I can't see why anyone would expect it to.

and you cannot forget the powerful two-handed lance knights have been known to use. Although a dual-sword wielding Cataphract is obviously a bit more flexible than a lance wielder. And realistically, after the initial charge or two the lance was thrown onto the battle-field, and new weapons were equipped (sometimes sword and shield, sometimes two swords) ... although I imagine that cavalry will simply have a charge bonus, as opposed to switching in and out of the lance.

In any event, I will re-state the larger the map the better. The less like HOMM the better as far as "tactical" battles :/

Dual-wielding is cool.

As a matter of curiousity, is there any real world reason you'd want a double bladed sword over just two swords, or are they really as rediculous as they seem to be? One of those things that mystified me from games and movies.

In case you don't know what I'm talking about:

http://www.teraasekeskus.com/tuotteet/fantasia/AABlackRoninNewnet.jpg

Well, if I was actually fighting for my life, I would probably want only ONE sword, with ONE blade, and ONE edge .... also I would like for the part of the blade (about 8 inches) above the hilt to be thicker and dull (no edge) to help with parries. Perhaps the tip could be more arrow-like and double-edged .... although I would basically only want/need to focus on one sword in order to cut into my opponents.

I perfer one-handed bladed swords myself, although a two-handed option would be nice.

Reac weapons are also good. I prefer solid-purposed blades, for forward thrusts like the gladius ... although I wouldn't mind having reach to the weapon, so a pike/javelin, ect might be an interesting weapon to try ... however holding complete control over your territory of influence is usually the best.

I suppose a longer version of the gladius, with a parry-guard and a more specialized blade-tip, would be my weapon of choice, single wield of course.

I mean, im a fencer by trade, although its nice to theorize about different weapon styles. Either way, I believe dual wielding is a tad over-rated, but I don't mind it in a game if it "looks cool" I guess, as long as its done respectfully.

As to double-bladed weapons, its more of a centralized fighting style, somewhat pole based. If you get parried, you don't have to disengage perse ... you can simply push forward against your opponent using the opposite blade, still holding the opponent's blade in locked position as you swing forward with the other ... although its important to position yourself where the opponents blade would just slide past you as the lock is released (and they are about to swing again). If your able to minimize the distance without hurting yourself, it gives you more time and power with your counter-swing, and even if the opponent is a duel wielder A-your using your whole body, and both hands, while they are only using one hand, and B- if they choose to focus on blocking your counter, they will find their locked arm quite useless, and probably not ready to re-strike as soon as the lock is broken.

I would almost consider a dual-bladed weapon to be superior to dual wielding, and for a single-sword, single-blade master to be the best of all, as they have less to worry about, so can specialize to a greater extent.

I suppose a Double bladed weapon would be the most intimidating ... a whirling force of brutal lethality. Im thinking if you have a habit in slamming into your opponents, probably from a run, and locking into close-quarters infighting, then the double-blade might be good for you. It depends on relative size and speed between you and your opponent. It might actually be worth it for me to try out a double bladed sword.

As to actual dual-wielding .... I think its more a game of distractions rather than pure force. Its harder for the opponent to know where the attack is coming from. Which might prove to be an advantage, although likely not enough to survive a pit-fight against two soldiers of equal experience, when the other focuses on one weapon or a double bladed weapon.

Well, maybe if you look at it as a staff with sharpend ends, it might make more sense... A good staff fighter should be able to go 1 on 1 with a sword fighter and keep the sword fighter at a distance because of the reach of the weapon. If this would work with the double-bladed sword like in the image you posted? I don't know, I'm not a fighter, staff, sword or whatever...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladius

A double bladed sword. Also quite pointy.. Good for several types of attacking.

Try double edged ... it has only one blade.

I do like the sword, but we are talking about this. ... most searches take "double blade" and redirect to "double edge" so its a common mistake. First time I saw/heard of such a thing was in the first Neverwinter Nights.

http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/75/b/AAAAAkJNmWUAAAAAAHW8lg.jpg

I have no problem with dual-weapons being implemented, but I tend to agree that it's not really viable.  If it was then it would have been more popular historically.  When it has been done historically it has been a very light off hand weapon used more for defense then for attacking, although it could be useful if you have your opponents weapon pinned or something.  We tend to think in RPG terms and think it might give us an extra attack, but you don't really need a second weapon for an extra attack, you need a second brain.

Dual-bladed weapons do seem much more viable, but they also have not been popular historically.  This could be from the difficulty of storing and carrying them around though.  You can't easily sheath a dual-bladed sword.  What do you do with it when you aren't fighting?

KellenDunks mention of the Gladius does bring up another question though.  While dual-wielding is not common historically, carrying a back up weapon or weapons for multiple situations is extremely common.  A pike or spear wielder would usually have some variety of shortsword to defend with.  the Roman Soldier would carry a few javelins or darts for ranged combat.  I believe archers had something to use for close quarters combat.  Legolas certainly used his long knives quite frequently.  A secondary weapon 'slot' might be a good idea.

Agreed. I think at least certain units could be made with two "weapons" and it could use a turn of in-battle play to switch from one weapon type to the other. That way you could keep your ice-blasting dragon slayer sword on your hero as well as your Butcher of Men giant 2H cleaver.

Also, certain infantry or cavalry units could carry a large 2H spear and then alternate to a short-sword gladius type for close in-fighting.

You know I HAD that thought in my head just after I posted it but I let it go.

You're talking about weapons Darth Maul style.

 The advantage of a double bladed weapon above dual wielding is simply reach in my opinion.  Reach and an improved ability to deal with people who are surrounding you.

I dunno... to get the extra length, wouldn't you need to actually grip the blade? You can do that with a quarterstaff... I don't think with a double bladed sword... that might hurt! It just seems like such an awkward way to fight...

Generally these weapons are quite long as far as I can tell.

And defintely they are longer than wielding two short weapons,