Best use of 2-Handers?

[Aldor]

Of course there is a difference.

Indeed.

The heavier the weapon, the slower the swing. Heavier weapons confer more energy and are more likely to cause internal trauma even while wearing heavy armour.

As k/t said you should balance with a high attack stat, combined with a large attack delay.

Currently these weapons are only devastating to armoured units, while unarmoured ones should get punished as hard. However due to unwieldy weapons these units should suffer themselves, especially against agile, fast and lightly armoured 1-handers.


Back to topic:

2-handers seem quite inefficient. They perform best when combined with a meatshield. Let them attack through your low tier units so they add killing power but don't get surrounded and staggered.

[DrDragun]

Well, the thing about a big weapon that transfers more impact is that it can be dodged in light armor. Simply giving anti-armor units a huge attack value would also make them the best over-all damaging units, which is not really the case. Against light armor, a fast sword would be the most deadly.

If we are fighting and I have a choice of samurai sword or warhammer, I would take the sword normally because it is a faster weapon and can inflict huge damage even with indirect blows, but if we were in plate armor I would take the warhammer, because now we are moving too slow to dodge and I can crack yer noggin through yer helmet.

So anyway, if we got rid of AP and made 2h attack value huge, then I think we would need to have a dodge stat or something so that warhammers wouldn't be the overall best weapon unrealistically.

[Vifarc]

a big weapon that transfers more impact that can be dodged in light armor.
giving anti-armor units a huge attack value would also make them the best over-all damaging units, which is not really the case. Against light armor, a fast sword would be the most deadly.

If we are fighting and I have a choice of samurai sword or warhammer, I would take the sword normally because it is a faster weapon and can inflict huge damage even with indirect blows, but if we were in plate armor I would take the warhammer, because now we are moving too slow to dodge and I can crack yer noggin through yer helmet.

So anyway, if we got rid of AP and made 2h attack value huge, then I think we would need to have a dodge stat or something so that warhammers wouldn't be the overall best weapon unrealistically.

+1 as they say

[k/t]

When the enemy is wearing light armour, you don't need to hit him as hard to hurt him. A halberd is deadlier than a sword if you get hit, regardless of how much armour you're wearing, just like a crossbow bolt will do more damage than an arrow, which is why it makes no sense for crossbows (or javelins) to have AP. If you had to fight someone, the best weapon to choose would be the one with the greatest reach. Have a look at poleaxe fighting techniques videos. Fighters don't grab one end and swing the other one in a wide arc like a golf club. A lightly armoured opponent can be stabbed with the butt-spike.

Trained fighters can move very quickly in plate too. If they couldn't, they wouldn't have worn plate.

There is no dodge stat, but that's why testing and balancing are necessary. It makes no sense for a halberd to have an attack of 6 against a peasant when a two-handed sword has 8 against him. It could be argued that the lower attack against unarmoured targets shows that it's harder to hit them, but AP also makes highly-armoured enemies much easier to kill than they should be.

[Swad]

Indeed.

The heavier the weapon, the slower the swing. Heavier weapons confer more energy and are more likely to cause internal trauma even while wearing heavy armour.

Two handed swords aren't exactly heavy. Or at least in videos where swordsmen are demonstrating them, they do seem shockingly fast. I guess this is because using two arms is more efficient than using a single arm. With two arms, not only is the power doubled, but for weapons like halberd and even zweihanders, you can achieve a leverage system with your two hands, potentially letting you swing and react just as fast if not faster than a substantial weapon used with one hand.

[Flinn]

IMO, it depends on the kind of two handed, with swords being probably swifter than axes or hammers.

We have to take into account the incumbrance of the weapon itself too, as the bigger it is the more room is needed to swing it, so if packed up a group of two handers would clearly be much slower in attack (or ineffective at all) compared to one handers. That's why the Romans used daga short sword as their standard weapon.

I think the best effect for two handed (excluded pole arms) is when the user have enough room to fully use it, thus granting 100% impact of two hands grip and weight of the weapon itself, and probably being able to be relatively fast too.

[Vifarc]

Two handed swords aren't exactly heavy.

2-H are made against armors. If heavy armor is not so heavy, then the 2H weapon has not to be so heavy, it depends.
Against gothic armor, even a 2-H blade weapon is made very heavy. Against a japan heavy armor, the 2H blade is the no-dachi, wich is far less heavy than its european version.
EDIT: Sorry I seem wrong, I don't remember where I read about blades made heavy to be usefull against armors.

[Infidel144]

2-H are made against armors. If heavy armor is not so heavy, then the 2H weapon has not to be so heavy, it depends.
Against gothic armor, even a 2-H blade weapon is made very heavy. Against a japan heavy armor, the 2H blade is the no-dachi, wich is far less heavy than its european version.

This is not accurate. The weight of the nodachi is little different than its European counterparts. This goes for Japanese swords generally as well.

[DrDragun]

I don't think people are underestimating the Japanese swords, I think they are overestimating the European ones. A claymore was about 5-6lb... lighter than a wood splitting maul and balanced much closer to the handle. They were not extremely heavy.

[Swad]

2-H are made against armors. If heavy armor is not so heavy, then the 2H weapon has not to be so heavy, it depends.
Against gothic armor, even a 2-H blade weapon is made very heavy. Against a japan heavy armor, the 2H blade is the no-dachi, wich is far less heavy than its european version.

Two handed swords really aren't that heavy, most of them ranged around the 2-5kg range.
And not all two handed weapons evolved to counter armor either. Two handed spears for one, is an infantry favorite useful against pretty much everything but the most heavily armored individuals, and even then, getting jabbed with the equivalent of a broom handle still hurts.
German zweihander users during the pike and shot age were renowned to be pitted against formations of lightly armored pikemen.
The majority of anti-armor weapons aren't 2 handed anyway, there's a whole host of maces, picks, clubs, daggers, flails, and axes that do quite well against armor.

[Jmonstra]

Personally, I like the two handed weapons to have AP. Not for any historical reason, but simply because otherwise they're just expensive infantry with lower armor. With AP, they make a nice hard counter to heavily armoured opponents who would otherwise be the biggest fish in the pond.

[=NF=Flimmeister]

They have very high charge values for infantery units. I find them very usefull in my battles. I use them to find and kill bodyguards or throw them into weak spots in melee or flank them around. But i always use their charge. Berserkers are the top and with their other abilities they are one of the most effective units in the game. (the rohan riders and the eldar/sylvan archers are above them)

[k/t]

Heavily armoured knights WERE the biggest fish in the pond.

[DrDragun]

They have very high charge values for infantery units.

They also need a much shorter charge distance than cavalry, so they can be used for shock charges in the middle of city streets, etc.

The consensus of this thread seems to be
1. Flanking (use similar to cavalry with charge bonus)
2. Wall attack / wall defense
3. City streets where cavalry can't charge

I find them much better at wall defense than wall attack. They can instant-kill enemies coming up off ladders... BOOM 3 hits from claymores each time a guy steps off. In the reverse situation, they get stunlocked and killed quickly against faster attacking infantry when they are outnumbered.

[Øctavia Yávëtil Theron]

I usually use my Isengard Berserkers as a line breaker in sieges at the main gate followed by some Uruk Reavers.

Great way to clear out a held gate, especially when you tire the defenders out with lower quality orcs...

Yeah but Isengard Beserkers if I remember right they have 2 Hit points compare to the normal 1 hit points of other units. I find that unit just epic at breaking lines in sieges basically if you saw Two Towers where they are the first one and open a gap for the Uruk-Hai well that's exactly what they do in the game. But yeah 2H Are best use against Cavalry or as Schock Troopers.

[Macilrille]

Bump. Let us get some non-closed and none-moved threads on the front page.

[Jmonstra]

Heavily armoured knights WERE the biggest fish in the pond.

As I said, my concerns aren't historical in nature, they're balance oriented.

[Mikail Mengsk]

As has already been said by others, 2-handers are good for attacking the flanks. You need to have them avoid archer fire and cavalry charges because they will be decimated.

To properly use 2-handers, they (usually) need to be used in reserve and not in the front line. You can use them to flank after the lines make contact, but cavalry can fill this role just as well and usually better. If you are playing the dwarves, though, you will just have to make do with 2-handers. Another important role is to use 2-handers as elites killers. If you can have a shield unit make contact with an elite enemy unit (trolls, mumakil, nazgul, etc), you can send in the 2hers to perform heavy damage to that unit while minimizing casualties.

However, the best use of 2hers I have found is to use them to defend chokepoints, like settlement gates and bridges. Enemy archer fire will be ineffective, and the enemy can't use charges with cavalry or infantry. And, as has been said by someone else, 2hers will destroy cavalry in melee. In vanillla M2TW, I used 20 units of Zweihander to defend Antioch against 8 full Mongol armies. I ended up with only one full unit at the end, but all the Mongols were defeated.

I don't know if they are good gap-blockers. In those situations the AI usually forms a blob of units, and the slow attack animation of 2handers will lead to them being spam-attacked and never be able to attack because of "being hit" animation.

2handers usually have very good attack value, so they are good for inflicting a lot of casualities, and quickly. Put them in reserve and use them like cavalry. Of course cavalry is better for that, but 2handers can mow down spear-armed units, a task that your cavalry can't carry on. So, a well balanced army would have cavalry AND 2handers to outflank the enemy with.

[Red Viper]

I use 2-Handers like the Winged Swordsmen of Gondor (MOS submod) against Trolls and they are good at their job. Otherwise they act as my reserve, because they are too expensive.

[avenging angel]

Yes.. reserve and flankers if you have lil cavalry or if the enemy tries to flank you...