Everytime when i send my huskarls in they end up in combat with their swords drawn. They should keep those axes and mess people up.

Yeah, they seem to always charge with their secondary weapon for some reason... :/


Annoying as it is, I also find it not to be too much of an issue, because they're quite useless anyways, and barely worth building. Unlike the Saxons, Viking bodyguards have AP, and actually hit harder, while also being a lot more resilient, than any 2h unit. That leaves their morale boost, and, on paper at least, an increased effectiveness against cavalry. If you really want 2h, get Butescarles or Sons of Death, but really, your bodyguards (just bring several FM in an army, most make poor governors anyways) should do for AP duties... and you don't need 2h/AP to chop up the masses of spears that other factions will throw at you.

And btw., if speaking of realism, in a 1:1 situation, where two skilled warriors fight each other, one has a two-hand axe and the other a sword and shield, guess who would win?

Most likely the swordsman, because he is much more flexible and his weapon is much more dangerous.
The axeman can only win if he actually hits the swordsman, the probability that this can happen is 1:2, but vice versa 2:1, imo (a two-hand sword in skilled hands is another thing though).

Two-hand axes would be a good weapon to hit an approaching horseman (hitting the horse), and also to destroy wooden-shields of a spear/shieldwall, and spread fear in that moment, but most likely would loose sooner or later if the opponents stand their ground.

And usually one-hand axes (rusty tools) were used by the poor guys who had no access to swords. And even actual one-hand battle-axes were seldomly used against a swordopponent, as for the clear said disadvantage.

Again, quality swords were expensive, so rather seldom, and thus a lot poor guys used axes (which are else used to cut wood in the usual life) for melee combat. The most effective (and most honored) weapon was the sword, not an axe two- or one hand - this is valid for vikings as well, and especially. That vikings (or let's say better danish or norse warriors) were axe-wielding people is a myth, and just only valid for the poor guys who even had no access to a proper spear.

Edit: I forgot to say, it is just quite difficult to reflect those realism-things in the game-stats, but i think VI2's combat model works pretty good and reasonable.

Your argument only holds true if you a) assume a duel or comparable situation and b) that most/all hits by both weapons are equally likely to incapacitate the opponent. The latter simply is not the case when suficient armour is used. For the time period of this mod, armour has to be graded as "almost there, but not quite yet" (as it is still mostly aimed at stopping, not deflecting blows), and, accordingly, most 2h-troops aren't the relentless grinding machines that their late medieval plate armoured, polearm-wielding counterparts would be. Still, they're often also the only professional warriors on the field, which allows them to overcome their armour deficiency unless you put them up against similarly skilled opposition (most Celtic swordsmen, despite being quite low-tier, do a good job of dealing with the 2h units).
As for "the most prized weapon was a sword" argument - well, it might have been, but not as a killing tool on a battlefield. These professional warriorswent into battle with the sword as their secondary, not their primary weapon. For that they'd use spears, or increasingly during this period, 2h axes, which became ever more viable as heavier armour became more available. Metallurgy, battlefield formations etc. also play an important role.

But then, this wasn't about realism afaik, but about a gameplay quirk that always makes Huskarls draw their secondary weapons for a charge, regardless of what you order them to use (click or alt-click).
The same goes for the useless-vs-horses argument, see the "cavalry too strong" thread for why it barely matters what you're trying to kill the cavalry with.

Edit: And to completly go off on a tangent here - re-enactments and fight reconstructions have a tendency to omit axes, maces and other weapons in favour of swords, simply because it's much harder to render them "safe" - their main targets are the head and neck, and the leverage involved means you can't really pull your punches. In a mock fight between a swordsman and an axeman, even if protective gear/armour is used, you can't really demonstrate effective axe techniques, because if you do, you will do damage to the other person. Combine that with misconceptions about swords as primary battlefield weapons, and you have a pretty solid bias against anything that isn't a sword, that you can't really overcome without inflicting serious injury. :/

Edit:2 I'm getting the feeling we're not really disagreeing here, I probably just jumped on the sword-vs-axe argument with rather too much enthusiasm... sorry about that.

in a 1:1 situation, where two skilled warriors fight each other, one has a two-hand axe and the other a sword and shield, guess who would win?

Click to expand...

Hmm, debatable.

as an ex reenactor,ive fought with all weapons mentioned,and at a point in time where safety was not so much of an issue,and so i can tell you it depends on whos using the weapon.the five foot bearded axe takes a lot of skill to use effectivly,and its not a weapon you can 'pull' to lessen a blow very well.however i have seen 3 bearded axe users smash their way through a shield wall 50 strong composed of mixed sword and spearmen,and once amoung them moving at speed destroyed the formation,opening it up for an attack.and this is the best way to use them,in reenacting anyway.to disrupt and break momentum.

One probably shouldn't underestimate the morale/psychological aspect of the weapon, either - combined with armour, going up against the axeman gives you the options of death and mutually assured destruction - even if several enemies attack him at once, he's going to probably take at least one of them out. You'll have to build up that resolve from somewhere first, whereas the axe user can "wade in" (he'll actually be attacking quite quickly) with a lot more confidence, and that's just the equipment side of things. Combine that with the socio-economic background, and its really biased in favour of the axe user.

also,remember how such a weapon is actually used.the men using them were fit and fast,never standing still the blade of the axe constantly moving at high speed.the shaft of the axe is also a very effective blocking tool.swords of any quality were very expensive so axes of all kinds and spears would have been more common.the scramaseax was a more common bladed weapon for warriors and not just vikings.this could be as short as 6 or 7 inches,all the way up to 3 feet long.

In answer to the OP, perhaps you are always using Alt+Attack. If a unit has two weapons, Alt+Attack will always make them use the second; this is how you can force lance-armed cavalry to attack with their sword (if they have one).

It may work differently for infantry, though.

Infantry uses their secondary weapon to charge; cavalry always use their primary (if melee); that's how the engine was built.

So is this a graphic issue only or does it affect the unit stats? That is charging with secondary weapon.

It affects the stats too, unless I'm mistaken. Annoying, I know.

DaVinci said:

That vikings (or let's say better danish or norse warriors) were axe-wielding people is a myth, and just only valid for the poor guys who even had no access to a proper spear.

Click to expand...

Both the sagas and archeological evidence disagree, only the more wealthy owned swords:
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_axe.htm
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_weapons_overview.htm

Holy moly, I just noticed the post date that I am responding to. Woops!

But he didn't say swords; he said spears. Spears were probably a lot more common than axes (I'm not an expert on the subject, mind you)

lol the guy saying "stop pushing at the back...STOP PUSHING AT THE BACK!!" made me LOL, though i wouldn't lol if i was him

I really enjoyed that documentary. Is it part of a larger series?

The Stamford Bridge clip linked to earlier is part of a British production called "1066 - the battle for middle earth".. available on DVD, and probably also floating around on various "tube" sites in bits and pieces.