124 réponses à ce sujet

[Gabo]

uly wrote...

So yes, I understand you can't cater to every tastes, but may I suggest that DAO can still benefite greatly from one or two additional fighting styles?  If nothing else, it at least gives melee rogues a choice at all.  It seems bizarre to me that dual wielding should be the only melee choice for any character build.

A single weapon style not only makes realism sense, it could also make gameplay sense.  It could grant a defense bonus (due to better balance and smaller profile), or an agility bonus that translates into reduced aggro.  It could provide other forms of bonuses to make it a good secondary style; for example, arcane warriors may cast spells without sheathing the weapon, rogues get an in-combat steal and disarm trap, certain status ailments (like stun) last shorter, so on and so forth.

The game now switch between weapon sets near instantaneously.  But if they take longer -- and they should -- single weapon style could also benefit from a faster switching.

Anyway, I just think the 3 styles in DAO are a bit limiting.  A single weapon style seems utterly natural to have.  But I'd also like to see even more fighting style choices in future expansions that will surely come.  A style for pole arms would certainly enrich the world greatly; spears are afterall the most basic of all weapons.  A different style of sword+shield that focuses more on lighter shields would also be welcome.  It's yet another alternative for rogues who may want to tank a bit.  And let's face it, without such a style, who would ever use a small shield anyway?

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll make sure the feed back gets to the right minds working on future products

For now I can tell you a bit more about what whent behind the design and development choices we made. We wanted each style to have a large number of animations and special interactions with each other but were limited by technical constraints so we decided to focus on fewer styles and made sure each one was as detailed as possible. This is one of the reasons for why there are only three base styles. However, you should know that each class also gets a couple of specializations, so that adds a bit to the variety that a rogue has.

The main feature of a rouge, however, is that they have a lot of skills, but not so many fighting talents or talent options. This balances out and also differentiates the rogue from a warrior, since otherwise they would be far too similar. Given this, we decided to limit the fighting choices for the rogue. The game does let you equip those weapons if you wish, but it limits you from developing the talents as part of broadening the gap between a warrior and a rogue.

While more options can be nice (for the hardcore anyway, mainstream audience usually like to keep things simple) we decided that the game had enough variety for plenty of  fun strategic desicions and replay value. You can develop warriors in different fighting styles, rogues in different skill sets and mages in different spell schools, and believe me with the choices in the game as it is, there are many, many ways it can be played.

Don't despair if the particular choice you would like exist, though. The toolset that we gave out is very powerful so I'm sure someone will make a mod to fit your style (if we don't first). And if that doesn't happen, you could always take a shot at it yourself if you have the PC version, if you have a lot of free time

[Spawn305]

Gabochido wrote...

For most people, "reality" regarding sword combat is based on what they see in movies. Since most of the stuff in movie is only loosely based on real life and has a lot of fanciful choreography added to make it look cool, the "reality" presented in Dragon Age should also be easy to accept for most people.

While the part of what we wanted to get across with the weapon styles was that it looked humanly feasable, we also wanted it to look cool and we also wanted people to see it a lot since it does indeed look quite cool.

Um.... i dont want what human feasable. if i wnated that i would go buy two swords and run though the woods trying to kill deer wile dule welding. hell i would even dress my friends up are dark spawn just to slay them.

I wanted Drizzt with dule simatrs kicking the crap out of mobs blocking and attacking at the same time.

[telephasic]

Gabochido wrote...
In addition, making the level development of any style be weaker at first and more powerful later on tends to alienate most people from trying out that style.

While this is an understandable decision, there's something to be said to having a difficult path with an amazing payoff.  To use BG2 as an example, look at the barbarian versus the monk.  The barbarian was very noob friendly, but didn't really change all that dramatically as time went on.  On the other hand, the monk started the game as weak as a kitten, but by the endgame became the most powerful melee warrior, and could defeat anything with his bare hands except for a few liches.  To me that payoff was always worth it - although admittedly I played a swashbuckler/mage more often. 

Modifié par telephasic, 17 novembre 2009 - 06:32 .

[Pyroclase]

1000yardkill wrote...

It all started with The Grey Mouser, but I doubt many of you whipper-snappers even know who that is.

Hey, SOME of us have been reading Fritz Leiber for YEARS  But back to dual IRL. I used to do real life role playing with those funky looking foam/latex weaons and i never used to use a shield...axe and sword was the way to go.....a 6'2" bloke running at you screaming in rage with that combo always put the wind up people . But its doable with real weapons as well....used to do battle re-enactment and in chain with a longsword and long dagger its great fun!

[Gabo]

Yes, this is a game we are talking about. As with novels and films, everyone can always think of things they would have prefered and things they are just not happy with. Hopefully you guys will enjoy the game even if some of the things it presents are not exactly how you expect them. I won't talk about realism since, each person's "reality" depends on their experience or what movies they have seen or what research they have done.



And, as I mentioned before, there is always the toolset to alow anybody to modify the game to their style (within the technical limitations, of course).

[exerci]

Jassper wrote...

exerci wrote...

if you're wielding a big-ass twohanded weapon, then his dualwielding will not stop your weapon if you swing it full force, and your range beats his. (Or stab, you might have a spear)

Thats when you back step and let his swing follow through. I'll bet you 10 to 1 that I can move in close and stab 3 times before you bring that heavy a** weapon back around. Any one would be an idiot to try and stop a two-hander coming at you at full force with a light weapon. DW relies on speed, two-hander relies on brut force, speed will usually win.

Bottom line - Each style has it's own advantages and disadvantages as well as Ideal and non-ideal situations. It boils down to how good your opponent is, it's like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Look. If you're on a battlefield, there are essentially two situations. Either arrows are flying, or they're not. If they are, you want a shield. If they're not, your opponent is certain to have cavalry. If they don't, you're up against the scrubs of scrubs, and you could probably slap them with your unmentionables until they died. If fighting cavalry, you want a spear or a pike. Against a pikeman, you would like to be able to cut his weapon. Hence you would like a 2-handed sword for the range. But I digress. On the battlefield, sword + Shield is king. Twohander makes for a pretty damn dangerous 1v1-style, or antipikeman style. Dualwielding makes for a pretty powerful backup style IF you're on the battlefield and the straps on your shield/your shield are broken. It's usually pretty easy to grab an extra sword compared to grabbing an extra shield.

Actually. I just realised that in the context of Dragon Age, dualwielding is pretty useful. In real life, an all-out aggressive style like dualwielding is foolhardy at best, and suicidal at worst, but in Dragon Age where people can easily take several swings from a 2hander to the body, their natural resilience is pretty much enough to cover the weakness of dualwielding. Dualwielding wins, due to uber human resilience.

[Gabo]

Spawn305 wrote...
Um.... i dont want what human feasable. if i wnated that i would go buy two swords and run though the woods trying to kill deer wile dule welding. hell i would even dress my friends up are dark spawn just to slay them.

I wanted Drizzt with dule simatrs kicking the crap out of mobs blocking and attacking at the same time.

Well, you do get that in this game (except for Drizzt, he's from a different IP), but with animations that still look like they could be done by a non-superhuman warrior.

[Ryazan]

Dual wielders are great. I'm only about lvl 6 on mine and I'm tearing through enemies. It is balanced, however, as she is rather fragile.

[Pyroclase]

[/quote]

Look. If you're on a battlefield, there are essentially two situations. Either arrows are flying, or they're not. If they are, you want a shield. If they're not, your opponent is certain to have cavalry. If they don't, you're up against the scrubs of scrubs, and you could probably slap them with your unmentionables until they died. If fighting cavalry, you want a spear or a pike. Against a pikeman, you would like to be able to cut his weapon. Hence you would like a 2-handed sword for the range. But I digress. On the battlefield, sword + Shield is king. Twohander makes for a pretty damn dangerous 1v1-style, or antipikeman style. Dualwielding makes for a pretty powerful backup style IF you're on the battlefield and the straps on your shield/your shield are broken. It's usually pretty easy to grab an extra sword compared to grabbing an extra shield.

Actually. I just realised that in the context of Dragon Age, dualwielding is pretty useful. In real life, an all-out aggressive style like dualwielding is foolhardy at best, and suicidal at worst, but in Dragon Age where people can easily take several swings from a 2hander to the body, their natural resilience is pretty much enough to cover the weakness of dualwielding. Dualwielding wins, due to uber human resilience.
[/quote]

Its not about blocking a 2 hander...its about parrying, deflect it and they hit the gound not you...then while they are trying to pull the zweihander out of the mud you stab them in the tender places (if you are daft enought to try and parry a horizontal strike, btw, you should be doing sewing not fighting...but on most battle fields getting enough room for a horizontal shot is nigh on impossible!) pikes are useless in any formation other than a huge wall of them. one on one its a doddle to grab the haft and pull the user over or run a blade down it into fingers. Obvioulsy shields are preferential to an aditional blad when facing a load of longbowmen, but you play the cards you have dealt yourself! (or hide under a mates shield).

Modifié par Pyroclase, 17 novembre 2009 - 06:43 .

[Spawn305]

Gabochido wrote...

Spawn305 wrote...
Um.... i dont want what human feasable. if i wnated that i would go buy two swords and run though the woods trying to kill deer wile dule welding. hell i would even dress my friends up are dark spawn just to slay them.

I wanted Drizzt with dule simatrs kicking the crap out of mobs blocking and attacking at the same time.

Well, you do get that in this game (except for Drizzt, he's from a different IP), but with animations that still look like they could be done by a non-superhuman warrior.

no this game doesnt even come close to the cool factor for dule welding. dule welding is such a let down int his game its not even funny. even two handed fighting sucks magic is ok but not enough spells. and FF makes magic useless.

the stm drain on the actovated powers are freaking INSAIN!!!!!! i can put on the speed talent on and then use one combat power. then i left just auto attacking. mose of the time i just go afk and come back and the mobs are dead.

Modifié par Spawn305, 17 novembre 2009 - 06:43 .

[Bluto Blutarskyx]

Yevgenii wrote...

Bluto Blutarskyx wrote...


how a shield is meant to be used to complement and cover strikes- not a static guard as fantasy fiction movies typically depict.

Completely wrong. The way a shield is meant to be used depends on what kind of soldier youre talking about, and the culture. ever heard of a phalanx? spartan hoplites would use their large round shields to cover their left and the right side of the warrior to their left, making a literal wall of static protection. Same with the Romans, although their phalanx was a copy of the Spartan/Macedonian phalanx, just with Tower shields.

Some western european armies, however, had troops outfitted with heaters (essentially a buckler, sometimes with a spike) so that you can use the shield to bash someone, throwing them off-balance, so that you can finish them off with the blade.

There is no one way to use a shield, it all depends on the style of combat.

no- its not completely wrong-

but that is true, i was primarily referring to the type of culutre in this game- which generally seems to favor heaters over large shields-

we are talking about mideval combat on a single 1 vs 1 scale not mass battle formations with larger shields and sheild walls with ranks. if you really want to get detailed, then with the level of plated armor in this game, there shouldn't even be smaller shields and instead of "mighty blows" a "half swording" sustainable power would be more appropriate- but thats fantasy for you.

definately there are other uses in history, but in single combat, the shileds presented in this game- the mid sized "heater" shaped shields meant for combat or the small buckler types were not meant to be static guards as part of a phalanx formation.

I would LOVE if the game actually incorporated that and spear use even on a smaller scale.

[Malcroix]

exerci wrote...

The short version:

If you're dualwielding, I'd like to see you do any damage with your off-hand weapon to that guy in the plated armor without sacrificing normal swings.

Do you actually know how much force is applied to the sharpened edge of a longsword when sent through the attack arc or thrust? We use dulled steel practice blades, and they can crush through 2-mm steel armor. That's modern cold-forged steel, not that mediaeval crap. A SHARPENED blade lops off armored limbs and pierces gorgets/visors. Of course, when going against something like Maximilian gothic full plate you'd better aim for the weak parts, but only high lords, kings and emperors could afford such armor. Most of the people fought in rather primitive armor, or none at all. Even with the proliferation of plate armor in the 16th century, the longsword was still a valued weapon. It was the weapon of choice for heavy cavalry in the melee after the lance charge (along with mace and morningstar), and for shield infantry. Others used it as a supplementary weapon, e.g. pikers and halberdiers all had swords for close combat.

And if you're a trained dual-wielder, your left is almost as strong as your right, and with the right techniques you use the momentum of your two blades to further increase the force and speed of blows.

If you're not using it offensively, you should use a shield.

Have you ever actually used a shield?

A large shield is a pretty heavy and cumbersome thing. It obstructs a huge part of your field of vision. It does NOT offer full protection even for your shield side - your leg and top of head stick out, and are favored targets of the enemy. There are many feints to trick the shieldbearer to move the shield one way, when the attack is actually coming another way. Finally, the shield actually hinders your own attacks. That's why moving in the direction of the shield against the shieldbearer is such a common tactic (of course, watching out for the possible shield bash).

From my point of view, shield is excellent in formation, in the open field against cavalry, archers and the like.

In a 1-on-1 duel, its value drops. The protection it offers is basically overkill against a single enemy with a single blade. It's still a great style, of course, and extremely efficient. But I prefer to trade the shield for the much better offense of the second sword. And better offense = in reality better defense.

Honestly. In real life, there hasn't ever been any actual military use of dual wielding weapons.

In reality, honestly, there are MANY accounts of dual wielding in battle. From the viking berserkers who used 2 swords instead of sword-and-shield; to the medieval knights who were known to use dual everything, from swords to maces to flails; to Japanese Samurai (ever read the Book of Five Rings by Musashi?), to Chinese sword masters...

The reason it wasn't used MASSIVELY is the same reason why 2-handed weapons were never used MASSIVELY - it required a lot of training and a specially conditioned body, which was just not cost-effective in times when you could outfit 10000 peasants with pikes, teach them some basic formations, and beat the enemy with numbers. And in a formation, there really isn't a place for a dual-wielder. He's primarily a duelist, like I said, or a flanker.

If using the main gauche... you're also not any more effective offensively, as pretty much everyone would be wearing some sort of armor, and getting in close enough to actually hitting with that would be rather suicidal.

Again, you speak without any knowledge of the matter. It's really rather ridiculous.

Someone is targeting you with an arrow? Well ****, you should've brought your shield.

A good archer will cripple you despite the shield. Unless it's a tower shield or a pavise, in which case good luck lobbing it around the battlefield and defending from melee. And we're not talking vs. archers (muskets, cannons) here.

Someone is in close? Well, if you're sword'n'boarding at him, then either you've got a heater, which will make your offense roughly equivalent, but your defense better than him (You can still bash people in the face with a heater and throw them off guard), if you're wielding a big-ass twohanded weapon, then his dualwielding will not stop your weapon if you swing it full force, and your range beats his. (Or stab, you might have a spear)

Spear is easy to beat in 1-on-1 melee. In fact, it's a stupid weapon in a duel, as its only purpose is to be used in formation.

2-hander is slower than 1-hander, and has a bigger arc. Once he swung, step inside the arc, lock his greatsword at the base of the blade with your longsword (it's actually pretty easy if you apply the rule of the lever), and bash his head in with the second sword. There are many techniques when fighting against 2-handers, this is just an example.

Sword-and-shield I'd say is the toughest of all. But again, there are tricks and techniques. You have offense and defense on both sides; he only has 1 offense and 1 defense. Shield bashing and pressing is fun, of course, but can be avoided - or even invited just to strike him down on a countermove.

Honestly. I'd like to see an example of someone who actually used dualwielding against competent opponents in history.

Berserkers, Musashi and his entire school (the Ni-to), duelists (rapier + daga), knights, Chinese swordsmen... you name it, they've got it. But, again, it wasn't widespread due to the complexity of the techniques and to the state of the art of war at the time (peasant armies etc.).

Twohanded weaponstyles, and sword'n'board weaponstyles work roughly the same as in real life as well. Consider how dual striking would work in real life. Attacking with both weapons whenever you attack? Consider how quickly your opponent would murder that if he was a competent soldier.

Okay, just one last time. Dual-wielding is a time-honored and extensively developed martial tradition in a number of cultures. Today's actual practice shows its viability against all the other styles you mentioned. So please stop making claims based solely on your imagination.

Modifié par Malcroix, 17 novembre 2009 - 07:03 .

[Malcroix]

Double post.

Modifié par Malcroix, 17 novembre 2009 - 06:54 .

[uly]

Gabochido wrote...

stuff

Actually, on further reflection, a hypothesis:
Aren't people who like dual wielding tend to like it because, well, it looks cool and special?  On the other hand, people who prefer sword&shield probably doesn't care nearly as much for the uniqueness factor.  As such, if there are less dual wielders in the world and more shield dudes, it would probably make the dual wielders happier while taking very little enjoyment from the shield bashing types.

Malcroix wrote...

uly wrote...
A single weapon style not only makes realism sense

To
be frank, it makes less sense than the other 3 styles. Melee with only
one single-handed weapon? Not really done.

Okay, you've lost me there.  There are single sword fighting traditions in, oh, almost everywhere I could think of.  Yes it's nonsense to fight with a single weapon on the battlefield, but so is fighting with two weapons.  Single sword combat is generally a single combat style for the purpose of dueling or self defense.  The simple reason being that, while almost everywhere the warrior class carry a sword all the time, very few will lug around a shield, which is after all the best off-hand instrument.

Yes, in some regions, namely Europe, a style of a main weapon supplemented by a off-hand weapon developed.  You seem to think this is the norm, but no, it's more of an exception.  Most two weapon styles everywhere else are based on two light weapons rather than the main+off approach.  But even in Europe, the main gauche never became the dominant style precisely because it isn't the most effective.  In the dueling context, people quickly found out that the better form and balance that could be achieved with a single weapon style can generally out perform the advantage offered by a dagger or a cape.

Judging from what you've said, I'm guessing that you practice in medieval or renaissance revival styles, with swords that are balanced to favour slashing over stabbing.  Even in these circles, two weapon fighting remains relatively unpopular.  In this context, yes, single weapon may be at a significant advantage against the other styles.  But let's not forget that, advantageous or not, there are many practical reasons one need to or prefer to fight with a single weapon, that's why there will always be a strong single weapon tradition.

In fact, realistically speaking, I'd say sword&shield is downright the most advantageous style outside of specific fencing and dueling constraints.  Perhaps you're naturally gifted with ambidexterity, but the simple fact that the people you fight against aren't all dual wielders should tell you something about dual wielding: that it's unintuitive and inefficient for most people.  If dual wielding is as great and as easy as you say, why is there any non-dual wielder left at all?


EDIT:
@Malcroix:
Okay you type much faster than I do.  But from your post above I can see that we are mostly in agreement, probably as fellow dual wielders.  I'd just like to stress that dual wielding, while great when mastered, is basically a stupid style choice for most people.  Your success with dual wielding speak well of your ability but not much about dual wielding as a style.  This brings me back to the reason why I started this thread in the first place: as a two weapon practitioner, it simply annoys me to see armies of dual wielders, everything from bodyguards to petty bandits, running around in Ferelden.

Modifié par uly, 17 novembre 2009 - 07:18 .

[CorwynNiTessine]

All I got to say is... double sword-chucks!

[Malcroix]

[quote]
[quote]Malcroix wrote...
[quote]uly wrote...
A single weapon style not only makes realism sense[/quote]
To be frank, it makes less sense than the other 3 styles. Melee with only
one single-handed weapon? Not really done.[/quote]
Okay, you've lost me there.  There are single sword fighting traditions in, oh, almost everywhere I could think of. [/quote]

Never said there weren't, didn't I?!

[quote]Yes it's nonsense to fight with a single weapon on the battlefield, but so is fighting with two weapons. [/quote]

That is just not true, and history knows relevant examples. Already quoted above.

[quote]Single sword combat is generally a single combat style for the purpose of dueling or self defense.  The simple reason being that, while almost everywhere the warrior class carry a sword all the time as a fashion and status symbol, very few will lug around a shield, which are after all the best off-hand instrument.[/quote]

Exactly, the sword alone, in itself, was used in special situations such as sudden attack. In this term it was like a modern sidearm - always present, but not the main weapon on the battlefield.

[quote]Yes, in some regions, namely Europe, a style of a main weapon supplemented by a off-hand weapon developed.  You seem to think this is the norm, but no, it's more of an exception.[/quote]

I NEVER said it was the "norm". I SPECIFICALLY STRESSED the specificity of dual-wielding and the factors that precluded it from becoming a massed practice.

[quote]Most two weapon styles everywhere else are based on two light weapons rather than the main+off approach.[/quote]

Not true. Ni-to in Japan uses katana and wakizashi, both not light weapons (katana actually a heavy weapon). Vikings used longswords. Chinese used longswords (ziang) and scimitars (dao). Knights used longswords, maces etc.

[quote]But even in Europe, the main gauche never became the dominant style precisely because it isn't the most effective.  In the dueling context, people quickly found out that the better form and balance that could be achieved with a single weapon style can generally out perform the advantage offered by a dagger or a cape.[/quote]

You know this HOW? European duelist fencing evolved into the modern fencing sport. You're saying it's actually effective? Bollocks. It's so torn away from reality it is not even funny.

[quote]Judging from what you've said, I'm guessing that you practice in medieval or renaissance revival styles, with swords that are balanced to favour slashing over stabbing.[/quote]

I don't exactly "practice revival". We don't follow Talhoffer to the letter. I practice martial swordsmanship. There are clubs, training, and tournaments involved in the sport (though I'm not as committed as I may have wished). If something can be done better than offered by medieval manuals, we do it the better way, and to hell with "reconstruction".

And the swords we use are various. Tournaments generally prohibit stabbing/thrusts - because those are so powerful they can easily kill even an armored opponent and even with a dulled blade. But in training/sparring, we also practice thrusts. The Roman longsword (not the ancient Roman, of course) is ideal for this, being designed for both slashing and thrusting. If you want to go only slashing, scimitar may be preferable.

[quote]Even in these circles, two weapon fighting remains relatively unpopular.  In this context, yes, single weapon may be at a significant advantage against the other styles.[/quote]

Dual is unpopular true, but not unknown. There are some advanced practitioners. And no one ever comes to the tournament with a single weapon. It's defeat, pure and simple.

[quote]But let's not forget that, advantageous or not, there are many practical reasons one need to or prefer to fight with a single weapon, that's why there will always be a strong single weapon tradition.[/quote]

Yes, but again, these circumstances are not what this game is about. In open battle you've prepared for, you want something stronger than a single one-handed weapon.

[quote]In fact, realistically speaking, I'd say sword&shield is downright the most advantageous style outside of specific fencing and dueling constraints.  Perhaps you're naturally gifted with ambidexterity, but the simple fact that the people you fight against aren't all dual wielders should tell you something about dual wielding: that it's unintuitive and inefficient for most people.  If dual wielding is as great and as easy as you say, why is there any non-dual wielder left at all?
[/quote]

Sword and shield is definitely very powerful, and the most popular. But there are many dual-wielders in the world. Just look at the Chinese martial artists, they're fantastic (watch some sports competitions or demonstrations on youtube, if nowhere else). Medieval swordsmanship groups also know this style. And I NEVER said it was easy, I specifically pointed out that it had significant special demands. But you don't have to be ambitextrous - I'm not, and none of the dual-wielders I know arent either.

Anyway, back to playing the game!

Modifié par Malcroix, 17 novembre 2009 - 07:27 .

[Malcroix]

uly wrote...


EDIT:
@Malcroix:
Okay you type much faster than I do.  But from your post above I can see that we are mostly in agreement, probably as fellow dual wielders.  I'd just like to stress that dual wielding, while great when mastered, is basically a stupid style choice for most people.  Your success with dual wielding speak well of your ability but not much about dual wielding as a style.  This brings me back to the reason why I started this thread in the first place: as a two weapon practitioner, it simply annoys me to see armies of dual wielders, everything from bodyguards to petty bandits, running around in Ferelden.

To be fair, 90% of dual wielders I saw in the game use sword+dagger. Which indeed is a far less advanced level of dual-wielding than 2 longswords. Also, quite appropriate for back-alley rogues (though I was surprised to see a warrior like Duncan use it).

About the only NPC I remember who actually used 2 longswords was the duelist Isabela, who was supposed to be this master kensai (though she adamantly refused a duel, despite all her braggadoccio and the name of her specialisation). So it's pretty adequate IMHO.

[uly]

Just to needlessly prolong the argument...  (Hey at least it's interesting to me.)

Malcroix wrote...

Yes it's nonsense to fight with a single weapon on the battlefield, but so is fighting with two weapons.

That is just not true, and history knows relevant examples. Already quoted above.

I stand by my statement.  The viking berserkers' tactic is as much psychological as practical; dual wielding doesn't necessarily make them better fighters, but it sure as hell make them scarier.  Medieval dual-wielding knights was a phenomenon that occured because, during a certain period, their armours far outclass the weapons, making additional defense like shields superfluous.  And NO, dual wielding is never common in China or Japan, they are always the exception and never used on battlefield.

Most two weapon styles everywhere else are based on two light weapons rather than the main+off approach.

Not true. Ni-to in Japan uses katana and wakizashi, both not light weapons (katana actually a heavy weapon). Vikings used longswords. Chinese used longswords (ziang) and scimitars (dao). Knights used longswords, maces etc.

First of all, Japanese ni-to is an extreme minority style to begin with, and even then the great majority of ni-to schools actually use a smaller and lighter tachi than your standard katana, especially those who descended from Miyamoto Musashi.  Most of the rest of the ni-to schools descended from ninja schools, and prefer even smaller weapons.  And let's not ignore the fact that, despite their impressive pedigree, none of the ni-to schools has been particularly successful in competitions.
Yes, there are many Chinese dual jian or dao styles, but I hesitate to call them actual combat styles.  It's more of a form and dance thing.  I've only seen, on rare occasions, actual dual dao combat, never dual jian.  Dual jian in actual combat would probably be quite nonsensical, too, if you consider the principle of jian.  But then I've even seen demonstration of quadruple jian... go figure.  In any case, Chinese dao and jian, at least in the form it is commonly practiced, is much lighter than any near equivalent in Asia or Europe.

But even in Europe, the main gauche never became the dominant style precisely because it isn't the most effective.  In the dueling context, people quickly found out that the better form and balance that could be achieved with a single weapon style can generally out perform the advantage offered by a dagger or a cape.

You know this HOW? European duelist fencing evolved into the modern fencing sport. You're saying it's actually effective? Bollocks. It's so torn away from reality it is not even funny.

From (admitedly not very extensive) experience, but mostly from deduction.  The main gauche is hardly well-adapted for its task, much worse than wakizashi in the Japanese context, for example.  That's why in the time (and place) the style developed, there were always all these weird main gauche designs that try, but fail, to improve the thing.

Modifié par uly, 17 novembre 2009 - 08:30 .

[uly]

Double post.  Sorry.  Or dual post, rather.

Modifié par uly, 17 novembre 2009 - 08:04 .

[juillen]

The missing weapon is of course, the spear.. I used to do battle re-enactments many a year ago.. Spear and slung shield were my faves.

The hardest opponent to take on with this combo is actually the sword and shield (that's after having a few years to evalutate it quite thoroughly). Shield will stop the spear thrust quite effectively, and get past the spearpoint, and the spearman is in a world of pain.

Now a dual wielder.. There's nothing to stop the point. If you don't have a shield against a half decent spearman (or excellent armour), you're pretty much toast.

Given that in the medieval times, swords were pretty rare overall, and the mainstay of armies carried spears (they were cheap and highly effective), that's what you wanted to protect against most.

Dual wield against sword and shield is again not such a great combo. On equal skills, sword and shield will frequently win, due to ease of blocking blows with a shield (without much effort), taking out the use of the second weapon. Which leaves you with only primary to worry about (yes, from observation of this in actual scraps, yes, using steel, not the latex LARP weapons).

Axes are great for getting rid of sheilds (with a bearded axe, you can pull a shield wide open, exposing your opponent badly). Swords are just more flexible (you can hit with a greater range, and be effective at both extension, and in close; axe has far more problems in close).

Now, I don't have a problem with dual wielding. I've seen it done quite effectively (by a very competent swordsman), and against less skilled opponents, it allows you to do devastating damage against opponents; you just need to be very skilled before you try it.

[Darpaek]

Yeah right.



Some guy IRL comes at me with a knife and there's two knives sitting on the table next to me - I'm NOT going to pick up both of them?



Go to your kitchen, pick up two steaks knifes. Hold them in reverse and then shadowbox a little and come back and tell us that it's counter-intuitive.



(Like a previous poster, I've also done IRL rattan/PVC fighting games. I'll take a dagger over a shield ANYDAY. A shield is a giant target to get yourself knocked on your ass by a 220 lb former high school linebacker)

[Periodiko]

Darpaek wrote...

Yeah right.

Some guy IRL comes at me with a knife and there's two knives sitting on the table next to me - I'm NOT going to pick up both of them?

Seriously? What could you possibly do with two knives that you couldn't with one? With a weapon as short as a knife, wouldn't you be far better off just using your other hand to grapple?

And you renfair dudes - don't you think there's a possibility that the sterile environment of simulated/play sword-fighting and everything that entails might favor gimmicky weapon styles over an actual battlefield or brawl?

And for that matter, don't you think "getting knocked on your ass" is sort of a secondary consideration when people are trying to use giant pointed pieces of metal to penetrate your organs?

Modifié par Periodiko, 17 novembre 2009 - 09:37 .

[Zibon]

I just noticed this, it's funny, on some level even the (icon) designers knew that a single weapon style would be natural. The two icons for activated abilities for the Duelist specialization have the character in a single weapon fencing-type stance. And of course in D&D (and NWN2) the duelist is a single-weapon style.

[Kenshen]

Beertastic wrote...

Two words: Game balance. Bioware has to sacrifice some realism for the sake of giving more options and making them work equally well.

to rhalcepx516: He's referring to real life swordsmanship. Dual wielding in real life is not practical, and a easy way to get yourself killed (not that we use melee weapons anymore anyway).

This isn't quite true.  It was normal to have a second sword though it would be much smaller than your main one but would only (mostly) be used for defense.  It probably came down too what your particular style taught.  I know the swords I have are far to heavy to ever think of dual wielding them and yes if you did try to use two full lengh swords you would more than likely end up dead.

[UnAffectedFiddle]

I'd have thought a shield would have been quite effective. Bullrushing/slamming and so forth would seem effective. I also notice that perhaps in your highly regulated fights its not quite as indicative to the success of each style? I believe one of you said when actually fighting your not allowed to thrust and so forth since its still likely to badly wound, but might this make some styles less effective?



Anyway the point may probably be a bit moot, DA:O fights are more skirmishers than actual massed warfare where room and flashing movements are counter productive to efficient, tight quarters work is required one would think.