Larian Studios Forums Beyond Divinity (English) Suggestions Duel Daggers / swords

Of course we are <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" />

i know it's a bit weird, but i've always preferred to keep martial and technological weapons separate - unless the game itself was designed that way.

i remember playing dungeon siege and being just shocked when you travel through that cave and find the lightning guns! huh?!? just didn't feel right somehow...

I'd consider dual weapons more fitting than a cannon, of course - as I don't like modern weapons. But it was you using this comparison (cannon/dual weapons), right?

I'd appreciate it if you would not insult, Byblos. Having a different point of view doesn't necessarily result in someone being a cretin, hm?
Kiya

Ah, Byblos, I was so looking forward to your graceful exit.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

i actually believe that the 'cretin' comment was meant as a joke...

byblos is just trying to move beyond the insults that occurred earlier in the thread and probably was making light of the cannon-thing.

if i'm wrong here, byblos please feel free to call me a cretin again! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/stupid.gif" alt="" />

kiy - sometimes in english we use a completely ridiculous statement to show humor - even without a 'smiley' face attached becasue it's assumed all will know that it can't be a true statement, so it must be humor.

No matter what I say, someone always makes something wrong out of it. I could say 2+2=4 and they will some how find some way to try and turn that on me to make themselves look smarter.

For example, on the TES forums, someone was reffering to a Ballista as a catapult, so I kindly corrected them saying what that Large Crossbow is is a Ballista and was used for direct fire against infantry, and then some smart [nocando] "creitan" posts saying. "Ballistas are Catapults, just like onagers and trebuchets. Anything that shoots projectiles at buildings is a catapult."
What kind of BS is that, now with the duel wweilding I simply say No nation has ever eqiopped their army with dual weilding and prospered, Then I get this "YOu idiot they were Elite" "China and japan used dual weapons" blah blah... I never said NO one does, But the most known conquering nations. Alexander the Great and his ELITE forces and the Romans, The persians, None of them Used dual weilding simply because a Spear, Shield, or Two handed weapon was much more efficent in war. Maybe if you go to some fancy sword ballerina place they will duel using that style but it isnt real war.

dude...
in case you simply can't comprehend, i was trying to defend you!
why must you insist on slamming those who are not insulting you?!? guhhh!
wake up buddy!

oh, BTW, your original post was


you only changed it to be about 'armies' when you were shown to be so dang incorrect. you back-peddle an awful lot - but it's all in the thread - stop with the idiotic comments and you won't have to wipe your behind so much.

Who said my post was reffering to you specifically? I know you were defending me personally I never said you werent nor did i depreciate the fact.

No I wasnt either talking specifially talking about armies either time, I am and have always been talking about WAR, BATTLE, COMBAT! This game's Fighting is WAR BATTLE COMBAT not aremna fighting, in the arena its all about show (Dual Weilding) In real war that crap doesnt exist because spears, Shields and two handers are more effective! Before you go right on ahead trying to find fault in my point, try first to understand it.

My COmments are not idiotic you just read through them too damn fast and dont try to understand what i am saying you just persistantly stick to the first idea that comes into your head. Like the guy about Bekatowa. "Hmm he used the word bekatowa, and he is against fantasy weapons. Duh that means hes a hypocrite GUH" Thats what he comes up with instead of understanding it as. "Hmm Bekatowa is another word for Plain Longsword, and he says a plain longsword is more easy to control then two small swords." WHich is what I meant. In the USA army's ASVAB test in the section fo word knowledge and understanding my score was in the 99% nationally, So I highly doubt my explaining is the problem here.

once again - dude!!!

it was me who had fenced for 30+ years and you who insisted with these separate comments -

followed with



and finishing with



that was the third slam at fencing (and me).
you've made it quite clear what you think of fencing and fencers, and that you have no qualms about insulting the entire sport and it's participants. perhaps you don't realize how demeaning you are. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />
but then, for you to not understand that these references are highly insulting and dismissive shows that you indeed have a remarkable grasp of the english language. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

Actually my comments only would insult you if, you belive that your weapons are not useless for fighting and truely are lethal. And you consider bieng compared to ballet as an insult. Its your personal choice to have it insult you, not my intent.
WIll you deny that, the weapons are not for killing or real combat?
WIll you deny that, Fencing is more art then a killing style?
I doubt you will deny either of these things, instead you transform them into an attack on yourself, which is not what it was.

Fencing in my opinion looks retared because the swords are much too rubbery.
And the ballet comparison was aimed at Dual weilding NOT fencing.

whatever byblos.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/stupid.gif" alt="" />

If it was "Whatever Byblos" You wouldnt have commented in the first place, Pleae speak your mind I would like to be on the same page as you.

Please, calm down all of you. I think there's just some miscommunication here. Just because someone is disagreeing with you, it doesn't mean they're calling you an idiot or that they are angry. People are going to see things different ways. When you read posts, try not to read emotion into them if it isn't there, just look at the facts (or their "facts", if you prefer <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> ).

On the two-weapon topic, byblos mentioned arena combat. Perhaps two-weapon fighting isn't so unplausable in one-on-one combat. In a war, there's far to much going on to fight like that. You need defence and form to control the flow of large number of foes. In one-on-one, there is only one target to considder. Given that most RPGs involve smaller combats, involving small numbers of foes, two-weapon fighting might be possible.

YOu sre the first to understand my writing. COngratulations!
In response to your second post, If you are duel weilding, what do you do when you confront an archer on an open field? If you dont have a shield you are dead, and in DD you fight things mostly in little whordes, so it would only make sense that you want to be able to either protect yourself from them, or dispatch them as quickly as possible and dueal weilding definitly wouldnt be the answer. WAit let me guess in ancient china the l337 warriors could fend off multiple opponents with their dual full sized katanas? CMon now, is that not more ridulculous then saying magic is real <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

Damn those l337 chinese samurai with their vibro katanas. Dual full sized katanas would be quite rediculous, Katana and wakisaki (sp? I'm tired) were used. But damn, they'd sure get the hell kicked out of them by Anakin with his dual lightsabers.

Even with a shield archers would decimate large masses. But I do agree with you, in a large battle where shield walls are used dual weapons are not always the best idea, but it does not mean it was not used. In a shield wall, it would be useless, in a large melee where the shield walls have been broken and there is utter chaos all around, dual weapons would have been an option. As you say, to dispatch the opponents around you as quickly as possible. Two weapons offer just as much if not more defense than a two handed weapon. The two hander gives you a distance advantage but up close can be easily locked up.

But you really don't have to believe me Byblos, because as you said before you know what you are talking about and it's not like I haven't read up on this subject at all.

And since when is magic not real?

(just to be safe, I'm not trying to start a fight. The first comment and last comment of the above were simply jokes and not meant as insults.)

Magic isnt real because God has said so, and do not challenge God.

There must have been something extremely bad about using dual weapons or why hasnt the European nations ever had used them? If they were as great as some of you think then one of the Ancient european superpowers would have used them.

What was so bad about them was they were hard to train a large amount of people to use them. The levy wouldn't have touched them, new recruits would have barely been able to manage just one sword. Also one sword was expensive enough, having to equip a whole army with two swords would have been too costly for a large army made of more or less arrow fodder.

But if someone was able to use them effectively in the chaos of battle they would have. I've read about instances where someone with two short swords was able to use them so effectively in battle that every swing parried and riposted the blades around him. Granted this is probably greatly exagerated.

The celtic(which once controled all of europe, not just the british isle, during the La Tene period)/barbarian tribes of Europe such as the visigoths were considered barbarians, yet they were able to sac rome. They did not use the roman military system. They would have had sword shield, a two handed weapon, or two weapons. Mostly depending on PERSONAL preference.

A modern day example could be seen as people who use two guns at once. It's doable, I know of police officers who have done some sticky situations, others in the military who if force to resort to a hand gun would prefer two. But why doesn't the military do it? Training and Cost.

Two handed weapons offer almost just about as much defense as two swords. Two swords you are at a disadvantage at a distance but good up close. A two handed weapon you are at a disadvantage up close but great at a distance. Sword and board gives you a great defensive tool but can be cumberson. It's all personal preference.

I think what this arguement really boils down to is personal preference. You have stated that you prefer to fight with a single long sword. That's your style, that's what works for you. It does not mean that dual wielding is ineffective, stupid, or never used. It just means that it is not used by you. I've been trained in two short swords, sword and dagger, and two daggers in a couple of different martial arts. It works wonderfully for me, and I have used it both in a training setting, a duel setting, and a massive conflict setting. And in beyond divinity there are one on one, two on one, and massive gangs against one situations. I find the battles closer to D&D mini hord type battle than a military campaign.

Morg

p.s. Doesn't god grant some of his followers powers that could be seen as magical? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

now i know you're just silly! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

IM not silly..

THe celts were barbarians.. IF i ever had the chance I would outright kill every last one of them. And rome was only defeated because the nation was split into 2 and neither of them had a good leader.