Dual-Wielding units?

[akkakk]

they should have a duel wielding animation in to help with mods.

games which didnt, and had mods made for them (for example, Third Age TW and Call of Warhammer) which had duel wielder troops in was silly, as the duel wielding troops would not use both weapons.

at least put an animation in for modders. it doesn't have to be in the game.

[Symphony]

/headdesk

Can we please have one more accuracy debate thread? That would be nifty...it's been so long since we last had one.

[Paragon]

Fallacies can be correct. It's not like they're wrong just because they're a fallacy.

By definition, fallacies are incorrect. If the conclusion is right, that means you have to search fro another non-fallacious way to reach to that conclusion.

As the guy up there says, one unit in BI had sword and axe dual wielding. Did that cause Julius riding a dragon agaisnt orcs and elves in BI? No. Therefore, they are obviously not related. For starters, there is a difference between plausible and unrealistic. The theorical inconsistency of an unit using two weapons (something you can't say that it totally never happened nowhere in history, specially with Barbarians) is not comparable to fantasy beings.

As I have said, complaining about this is like going to MTW 2 or Empire and complaining that the units do not battle with real fencing.

[athanaric]

The theorical inconsistency of an unit using two weapons (something you can't say that it totally never happened nowhere in history, specially with Barbarians) is not comparable to fantasy beings.

People in a formation would always prefer to carry a shield as it is a very effective protection from arrows and it works well in a formation. Two weapons Musashi style just get in the way of everyone. And you take an arrow to the guts because you're not wearing a shield, and can't afford quality mail. "Barbarians" may have been less civilized than Romans or Greeks, but they weren't suicidal by default. They also tended to be as pragmatic as everyone else.
The only kind of "unit", apart from people engaging in a duel, that I can imagine to be dual wielding would be some kind of "berserker" style group of crazy warriors fighting without formation.

[douglas]

For the time period ---- dual wielding meant having both a Sword and a Shield available to use.

[Lord Baal]

No, of course no! Haven't you seen the arcani? And besides, we all know wielding to swords is sooooo cool, that your enemies will simply turn their backs and flee!

[Paragon]

People in a formation would always prefer to carry a shield as it is a very effective protection from arrows and it works well in a formation. Two weapons Musashi style just get in the way of everyone. And you take an arrow to the guts because you're not wearing a shield, and can't afford quality mail. "Barbarians" may have been less civilized than Romans or Greeks, but they weren't suicidal by default. They also tended to be as pragmatic as everyone else.
The only kind of "unit", apart from people engaging in a duel, that I can imagine to be dual wielding would be some kind of "berserker" style group of crazy warriors fighting without formation.

Have I said anything different? I think I said more or less that at the end of page 1. It's just that (spoiler warning), that doens't mean a game breaking disaster, nor does it causes Hannibal riding a T-Rex agaisnt orcs.

All the reasons you quoted could be applied to real animations. I think there are unarmored (or badly armored) soldiers that try to deliver a huge blow by raising their swords above their heads for a vertical, strong slash. In real life, no one does that, not even Barbarians, because it means being stabbed in the guts. I could also go on some M2 general bodyugard's covered head to toe, no, wait, neck to toe in armor, because they leave the face completely exposed, which is what you call a really bad idea™.

My point is not "dual wielding companies of soldiers are totally realistic" but, "there were dual wielding units in BI, nothing happened, and character animations already had many innacuracies of equal importance no one complains about"

[HanSomPa]

Have I said anything different? I think I said more or less that at the end of page 1. It's just that (spoiler warning), that doens't mean a game breaking disaster, nor does it causes Hannibal riding a T-Rex agaisnt orcs.

All the reasons you quoted could be applied to real animations. I think there are unarmored (or badly armored) soldiers that try to deliver a huge blow by raising their swords above their heads for a vertical, strong slash. In real life, no one does that, not even Barbarians, because it means being stabbed in the guts. I could also go on some M2 general bodyugard's covered head to toe, no, wait, neck to toe in armor, because they leave the face completely exposed, which is what you call a really bad idea™.

My point is not "dual wielding companies of soldiers are totally realistic" but, "there were dual wielding units in BI, nothing happened, and character animations already had many innacuracies of equal importance no one complains about"

You're getting uppity over nothing really. It's not like anyone will particularly care after the game comes out. They'll be too busy bashing everything else about the game.

[Paragon]

You're getting uppity over nothing really. It's not like anyone will particularly care after the game comes out. They'll be too busy bashing everything else about the game.

I was just saying that thinking this will lead or equals to a fantasy setting is quite stupid, even without knowing it already happened and it lead to nothing like what people say, that I already knew (and said in this thread) what they were trying to teach me, and that things like these have been happening all the time without people complaining.

Just trying to avoid this getting into a 10 pages thread of the same debate that it's everywhere, since here it's particulary easy.

[TR00PER7]

As the guy up there says, one unit in BI had sword and axe dual wielding. Did that cause Julius riding a dragon agaisnt orcs and elves in BI? No. Therefore, they are obviously not related. For starters, there is a difference between plausible and unrealistic. The theorical inconsistency of an unit using two weapons (something you can't say that it totally never happened nowhere in history, specially with Barbarians) is not comparable to fantasy beings.

But why put it in anyway? do you think people are really gunna care that there was no dual wielding units in the game? so much so that they dont buy it?

"aw man, I was so gunna get that rome 2 total war but they removed the arcani from the game which totally has ruined the experience for me"

Im not saying it may never happend but you're not gunna base an entire unit on it now are yer? I would be fine if it was a mob of units brandishing spears, swords, axes with some of them being dual wielded with others holding shields but I guess that would apply with a lot of the other units aswell.

And this aint exactly the only thing I dislike, I would rant on how the animation isnt accurate or realistic but because I dont know what actual ancient combat looks like I cant really judge so I have to make do with animations of repeated beatings and knights being spun round 360 from a billhook.

[Anna_Gein]

People won't care to the point of boycotting the game if dual wielding weapon unit are present. Same if it's absent.
Since it was extremely rare during the era it shouldn't be here. To preserve the ambiance.
Or we could transform the whole antic world into some kind of Hollywood generic world that would provide far less variety that reality.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

You people know that you don't need to reserve a whole hand to have a shield don't ya?

[Symphony]

Or we could transform the whole antic world into some kind of Hollywood generic world that would provide far less variety that reality.

I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!



WHY?!? Why the false dichotomy? Why, if it's not 100% accurate, do we have to act like it's 0% accurate? Any tiny inaccuracy (or perceived inaccuracy, since all the history professors here on the forums/real ones in the real world can't always agree on what truly happened), and the "might as well make the whole thing a Hollywood epic" crap gets trotted out.

I just don't get it.

[nomercysniper]

Someone mentioned earlier about captains dual wielding, that would only work for certain factions.

Romans - The captain would most likely be a centurion, who would lead from the front, with a shield not to cause gaps.

Other civilised factions (carthage, greeks, etc) most likely fought in formations, where a captain would be expected to join the fight, in which he would need a shield.

Some eastern generals wore an armored sleeve instead of having a shield. There may have been a chance of wielding a smaller secondary weapon here.

Barbarians... Barbarians do what they want to do and were that diverese. Captains would have been men promoted for bravery and skill. Possibly a chance of two weapons here.

[HanSomPa]

I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!



WHY?!? Why the false dichotomy? Why, if it's not 100% accurate, do we have to act like it's 0% accurate? Any tiny inaccuracy (or perceived inaccuracy, since all the history professors here on the forums/real ones in the real world can't always agree on what truly happened), and the "might as well make the whole thing a Hollywood epic" crap gets trotted out.

I just don't get it.

Me neither, especially since this is the same exact thing Paragon's been annoyed about.

[Anna_Gein]

I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!



WHY?!? Why the false dichotomy? Why, if it's not 100% accurate, do we have to act like it's 0% accurate? Any tiny inaccuracy (or perceived inaccuracy, since all the history professors here on the forums/real ones in the real world can't always agree on what truly happened), and the "might as well make the whole thing a Hollywood epic" crap gets trotted out.

I just don't get it.

To avoid 100% fantasy you must aim accuracy.
I don't remember whining because Romans didn't wear greaves. Hell I was terribly surprised by Jack Lusted when he announced few Greek soldiers would wear Corinthian helmet.

Why not try to get things right.
People complain about the lack of variety of Hellenistic factions but if the games was accurate it would be the exact opposite. It could even be the base to a new system of local troops for every faction. So players could field the army they want.
Some barbarians faction would even get some kind of "phalanx". Surprising no ?
Far more than the poor cliché of barbarians hordes. And they wouldn't need some fancy dual wielding unit.

So I don't get it neither.
And sorry but considering how rare was dual wielding weapons it doesn't really a detail.
It's something to not get right the equipment but it's an other to create from next to nothing a unit.
The game is suppose to confront the player to then ancient world. It doesn't seem whimsical to hope to get it.

Or are you so afraid to learn something from a game ?

[HanSomPa]

To avoid 100% fantasy you must aim accuracy.
I don't remember whining because Romans didn't wear greaves. Hell I was terribly surprised by Jack Lusted when he announced few Greek soldiers would wear Corinthian helmet.

Because if we don't aim for accuracy then we will get everything wrong? This is not a scientific work of any kind. They don't owe it to us or anyone else to get every single fact straight. They can make whatever they want, and if they feel that a suggestion to add a couple of dual-wielding units to the game might spice things up a little, there's nothing wrong with it. This won't be the reason the world ends I promise.

Why not try to get things right.
People complain about the lack of variety of Hellenistic factions but if the games was accurate it would be the exact opposite. It could even be the base to a new system of local troops for every faction. So players could field the army they want.
Some barbarians faction would even get some kind of "phalanx". Surprising no ?
Far more than the poor cliché of barbarians hordes. And they wouldn't need some fancy dual wielding unit.

Yes, so surprising I'm gonna have to ask for your sources.

So I don't get it neither.
And sorry but considering how rare was dual wielding weapons it doesn't really a detail.
It's something to not get right the equipment but it's an other to create from next to nothing a unit.
The game is suppose to confront the player to then ancient world. It doesn't seem whimsical to hope to get it.

The game is supposed to let the player have fun. I think it's quite possible we will see dual-wielding units in the game just for some fun. Nothing wrong with musing about random things.

History Channel

Extremely overrated imo. They are great for as an entry-level so to speak, but not good for much else. Not even random trivia.

[Anna_Gein]

It's a fact if you want to get things right you must put some effort.
So why stop yourself in the middle.

You complained about historical nitpicking yet you are the first to come asking source. Funny when you defend some fantasy for the fun.
I have no time to waste for you to explain what Romans called phalanx. Even the great Caesar allowed some barbarians to fight in formations. Like you said it's no the end of the world.
About Hellenistic army I see no need to explain why or maybe you want that much to transform this thread to historical debate. Again ironical.

The player could have fun without fantasy unit. I don't see your point.

So yes CA don't owe us anything. Not even dual wielding unit.

[HanSomPa]

It's a fact if you want to get things right you must put some effort.
So why stop yourself in the middle.

Because you can't have 100% accuracy since scarce material exists on that time period.

You complained about historical nitpicking yet you are the first to come asking source. Funny when you defend some fantasy for the fun.

How is that ironic? I defend GAMEPLAY, but since you brought something up that I DONT BELIEVE. I want to see sources.

I have no time to waste for you to explain what Romans called phalanx. Even the great Caesar allowed some barbarians to fight in formations. Like you said it's no the end of the world.
About Hellenistic army I see no need to explain why or maybe you want that much to transform this thread to historical debate. Again ironical.

You need too look that up in a dictionary, because the fact that I'm asking for sources and my opinions on gameplay and design are not related.

Oh and, I don't need explanations, I need sources. As in, the place where I can confirm your information. If it's a textbook, then page numbers and ISBN; if it's a website then section and URL.

The player could have fun without fantasy unit. I don't see your point.

So yes CA don't owe us anything. Not even dual wielding unit.

The player could have fun with 95% accuracy as well, so what's yours?

[cevap]

HanSomPa youre missing the point. If we dont have 100% accuracy NorbSoft folk will make fun of us

So Im not just trolling Ill chip in, I never see any real reason to leave a unit out of the game because it can be easily modded out unless of course its a huge resource hog in which case unique animations kinda are. Although it would be great to see dual-wielding units imo (I repeat In My Opinion) Id rather see more animations on other types of weapons done. Also HanSomPa, yes there were barbarians using the phalanx formation you can clearly see it in Rome1:total way hehe