29. April 2015 at 14:12 #2373SparkerParticipant
Hi chaps, congratulations on the early access release, really enjoying the gameplay so far, brutal and punishing.
Just wondering if you were going to add dual wielding as an option for the brothers? Would be sweet!29. April 2015 at 14:39 #2374
Hey Sparker, thanks for the thumbs up!
Of course its pretty rare that dual wielding is left out in any medieval-fantasy game/movie/anything as it always looks cool and shows a lot of dynamic. On top of that its an easy way to create a third option besides sword+shield or twohanded weapon.
Despite this we decided to not implement dual wielding. The main reason for this is that I personally dont think it makes any sense at all in pseudo-realistic medieval fighting (maybe apart from things like a main gauche).
Discussing this topic can be very tricky as people tend to have a very strong opinion on the subject hehe :)29. April 2015 at 14:43 #2375AnonymousInactive
I’m with Psen on this, if duel wielding was a thing it would kind of take away from the uniquness of the ‘roles’ each brother tends to fill. Too many sword/axe hybrids would also probably mess with the overall balance perhaps?29. April 2015 at 14:50 #2379BuceParticipant
For me Battle Brothers is very realistic tactical medieval combat simulator, so that’s why dual wielding should be added only after proper research.
I’m not a member of The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts but I have some knowledge about medieval and renaissance fight and I can assure you that in real fight dual wielding was only use with light weapon like dagger, knife, hatchet, etc. Dual wielding was used generally for better defence. In Battle Brothers it should gives you better defence, and bonus to riposte. So forget about extra attack ;)29. April 2015 at 14:55 #238029. April 2015 at 14:56 #2381SparkerParticipant
Thanks for the response, I undertsand the reticene of implementing it and its your call after all. My thoughts stem from having shields destroyed whilst in battle so you have the option to grab a secondary wepaon from the floor if lying around. The usefulness of shields/shield wall would mean there would be very few brothers dual wielding from the outset, it woudl just give another avenue for each battles narrative so to speak.
Anyways keep up the good work, keep making it brutal!29. April 2015 at 15:53 #2399GODParticipant
I tend to be in favour of anything that increases the amount of tactical options that the player has, but in this case I worry that it might clash too much with the semi-realistic tone of the game. Dual-wielding pretty much didn’t happen outside of specific styles centred around it – usually using light weapons like Buce notes – and even then it was really rare. Mostly suited to something like a duel. This is because shields basically outperform a second weapon in every single way. Better defence, you attack with it just as well, protection from arrows, easier to use, can form a shieldwall, and so on. In case of a destroyed shield it would also be more natural to just start two-handing your main weapon, because you can’t actually protect yourself with a sidearm the way you can with a shield and you can do more damage that way. Not to say that it didn’t happen, it’s just that shields are amazingly useful.
There’s also the problem of implementing it in this action point system to reflect to above. It would either be too useful or something that you would only want to use for role-playing purposes.
I’m of the same mind in looking for ways to expand your options in combat, though!29. April 2015 at 19:28 #2461AnonymousInactive
I think daggers in this game need a buff. Perhaps duel wielding could make them more of a viable option (they are pretty useless atm)
But single handed weapons such as swords, axes and maces I don’t think should be duel wielding weapons. Daggers and perhaps hatchets is where I’d draw the line.
…Saying that, those crazy Orc Fellas look like the kind of dudes that would run into a battle with a weapon in both hands ;)30. April 2015 at 08:03 #2522SkyParticipant30. April 2015 at 08:54 #2524JDCollieParticipant
I don’t think dual wielding as it is traditionally portrayed in gaming has much of a place in BB, since, as others have noted, dual wielding was actually incredibly rare historically, and despite the fantasy elements of BB, the mercenary company itself tends toward a very realistic tone.
However, I do think it would be interesting if daggers had the option to be off hand wielded, giving a very minor defense buff and a bonus to riposte (or granting riposte if the primary normally would not allow it). It could add some interesting defensive dynamics to otherwise very lightly armed characters (and NPCs). Still, if push comes to shove, I’d rather not have dual wielding that force it unnaturally into the game.30. April 2015 at 09:34 #2525Holy.DeathParticipant
I would be vary of making dual wielding good at defense, because shield can break (especially when fighting the Orcs) while you can’t break weapons on purpose.30. April 2015 at 09:43 #2527SkyParticipant30. April 2015 at 09:45 #2530
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.