Dual-Wielding units?

[Lockcaps]

Hi.

So in Rome1 we had a few dual-wielding units: Arcani, some sort of mercenary, and a few others i can't remember atm. How do you feel about it making a return in Rome2? Now i know dual-wielding is kind of silly because it's just impractical, but i really feel like it should be in the game. Perhaps poor units like peasants could occasionally be seen with 2 weapons, as they just grabbed whatever they could find.

[Zimmy]

I don't think it would be good, it would make the gods of historical accuracy mad. And we all know that they're so important.

[Rasic]

Maybe if they bring back the roman ninja. I'm not sure who else would dual wield something and not look borderline retarded.

[Lorddweeb]

I think it really depends on what you mean by dual wielding. A Unit entirely composed of guys holding two lightsabers: obviously bad. On the other hand, one of the things I really missed from Shogun was that - apart from the spearmen who seemed to really, really prefer fighting with swords - there was a big drop off in units who carried ancillary weapons. We already know the legions will have The pilum, so hopefully some other units will also have "secondary weapons" in various forms - either for one time use or that can be switched depending on the type of combat they find themselves in.

[Rasic]

Big difference from a back up weapon or situational weapon and dual wielding though.

[Ultra123]

it would make the gods of historical accuracy mad. And we all know that they're so important.

this.




would be epic with the right animations if implemented

[TR00PER7]

I don't think it would be good, it would make the gods of historical accuracy mad. And we all know that they're so important.

because you know, when your make a game based upon a period in history and not keep it historically accurate then why the hell not just have julius caeser ride out on a dinosaur killing barbarians with a minigun?

It just seems so arbitrary to throw in non existant units into a game just for the hell of it, not even to balance it for gameplay reasons.

although that being said, Im pretty sure some warriors would duel wield weapons but that would be because they were going to throw the other weapon at the enemy such as a javaline or axe and use the other weapon for melee but other than that having a shield has always been a better choice than two weapons.

[Sandraker]

Of course there will be dual wielding - most soldiers used shields!

[athanaric]

IMO they should make the animation etc. so as to help modders, but leave out dual wielding units in the game because they weren't used in the time frame, if they were used on battlefields at all. Except maybe for some crazy easter eggs.

I think it really depends on what you mean by dual wielding. A Unit entirely composed of guys holding two lightsabers: obviously bad. On the other hand, one of the things I really missed from Shogun was that - apart from the spearmen who seemed to really, really prefer fighting with swords - there was a big drop off in units who carried ancillary weapons. We already know the legions will have The pilum, so hopefully some other units will also have "secondary weapons" in various forms - either for one time use or that can be switched depending on the type of combat they find themselves in.

Unless CA ditches historical accuracy completely, you're gonna see a lot of units with "pre charge" javelins or skirmish ability. Not only legionnaires, but also many if not most "Barbarian" units, as well as many others. Javelins were also a very common weapon for horsemen, and I'm hoping we'll see some cavalry units with three different weapons - ranged (bow or javelin), charge (spear of sorts), and close quarters weapons (sword, mace, or axe).

[atheniandp]

IMO they should make the animation etc. so as to help modders, but leave out dual wielding units in the game because they weren't used in the time frame, if they were used on battlefields at all. Except maybe for some crazy easter eggs.

This.

because you know, when your make a game based upon a period in history and not keep it historically accurate then why the hell not just have julius caeser ride out on a dinosaur killing barbarians with a minigun?

+rep

[Okuto]

Those "ninjas" weren't even that useful if I remember correctly.....about as useful as the flaming pigs.....

[Maklodes]

I don't recall any dual wielders at this time. I think the Marathas had fighters who dual-wielded patta (gauntlet-sword thingies), dandpatta. Some Japanese bushi dual-wielded their daisho, although that was rare. I can't think of any from classical antiquity, though: just Empire and Shogun-appropriate examples. I would be interested in hearing any examples of dual-wielders in Western antiquity, though.

[torongill]

I don't recall any dual wielders at this time. I think the Marathas had fighters who dual-wielded patta (gauntlet-sword thingies), dandpatta. Some Japanese bushi dual-wielded their daisho, although that was rare. I can't think of any from classical antiquity, though: just Empire and Shogun-appropriate examples. I would be interested in hearing any examples of dual-wielders in Western antiquity, though.

If there were any, they'd be wielding a sword and a dagger in case their shield was destroyed. The arcani from RTW were good for ambushing only. They had good armor, but try to attack a unit of legionaries/scutarii head-on and they died like flies. vulnerability to ranged units and that's all that needs to be said. True, if CA decide to implement raids on camps, the arcani would be valuable. But so would be the german "night raiders" and practically every hit-and-run javelineers.

[Point_Man]

Those "ninjas" weren't even that useful if I remember correctly.....about as useful as the flaming pigs.....

The flaming pigs were my secret weapons. My opponent would laugh causing him to mistakenly leave the game.

Works every time...

[wolfbane751]

Those "ninjas" weren't even that useful if I remember correctly.....about as useful as the flaming pigs.....

actually i find them useful in field battles in singleplayer or multiplayer iv used them to great effect in both

[AzureNight]

"Dual wielding" is stupid as hell and completely unrealistic. I don't understand gamer's fascination with it.

[Geuvesa]

Secondary weapons is a good idea, but how to implement melee weapon to melee weapon is beyond me besides a sarissa armed member of a phalanx switching to a sword when an enemy comes too close. Say a hoplite switching from his spear to his sword. Losing or breaking a weapon could be a factor but the processes for equipment failure and persistant weapons seems a bit tedious on the scale of a Total War battle.

[Anna_Gein]

Would dual wielding animation really be good ?
I can only remind of dual wielding weapon in action film where the hero use his two swords to kill waves of adversary with few swings.
So would that be really impressive with a 1v1 animation ?

Wouldn't a unit of 160 men with dual weapon look a bit odd on the battlefield ? Most of them waiting with their two swords until they get their place on the front line.

[Paragon]

I don't know about barbarians and such, but in a real battlefiled training, dual wielding was really, really rare. Using a shield to defend yourself, especially from arrows, was what most people chose. In personal duels is different (even an amateur can think of stopping the enemy's weapon with one sword and hitting him with the another, for example), but in close, tight formations? You have a great risk of hurting yourself or the people on your unit. Maybe a bigger risk than hurting the enemy.

What I know is about swordmanship based on the middle ages, but I doubt there is a difference. If there are units that use dual wielding, it should be captains of an unit at most, not full companies of 120+ soldiers. Once thing is unrealistic and another entirely different thing is unbelievable.

[Wowwars]

Assasins creed type of double hidden blade retarded style? or 2 Axes like Shagga retarded style?