Raze:
To be included in the game, a realistic / balanced dual weapon system would restrict weapon sizes (obviously only one handed weapons, but possibly excluding the largest such swords), require a high level of training (perhaps with sever defensive and accuracy penalties at first) and higher stat requirements and have a slightly slower attack speed than a single weapon (perhaps comparable with sword and shield). There are various things that could be tweaked so it would not be overpowered. I'd expect effective dual wielding to require lighter armour to allow freer movement.
Hm, I just looked up my Spellforce warriors => some of them have hammer+dagger - or 2 swords - sword+dagger. Is this unrealistic? Not that I'd change it, I'm glad if they survive, but would you find this combo unrealistic? Or are rules different for this RPG strategy mix and would only spoil a proper RPG where I don't have armies as opponents and more single enemies or small groups?
Kiya
@Byblos: Ok, I see your point about the unfair advantage if your opponent has dual weapons - but when I play, I'm sort of used to have powerful enemies and have to try to find a way to survive (with magic e.g.). I gather from this thread that some like this additional dual option and thought => why not? The more options are there, the more gamers will want to try out the game. So my approach does not have the "realistic" touch, true.
