Arm strength for two handing vs one handing

I've been browsing the code, but so far I've haven't found if arm strength damage is doubled for two handing vs one handing a weapon. This would be a good buff for two handing if this isn't already the case. Also parry chance should be higher if two handing your weapon, even though you would have less a bit reach.

Two-handing should be thought of as a penalty, until you have enough arm strength to dual-wield.

Two-handed weapons are generally big, which also means that they have higher damage and block values compared to one-handed weapons made of similar materials. They don't really need another buff.

But as fejoa said, 2H weapons are already strong when two-handed, but become even better when you have the AStr to dual-wield them.

It doesn't matter, war swords or not, using both hands would deal somewhat more arm strength damage regardless of the size of the weapon. I also thought that one-handed weapons should be made into two-handed weapons because you can put both your hands over each other on the grip.

Edit: The main problem is duel welding. Only the most gifted of ambidextrous would be skilled enough to attack twice as fast when dueling vs using one weapon. Unless that's not the case in Ivan?

Dual wielding one-handed weapons is, well, kind of silly - handles on one handed weapons aren't designed to be used with two hands. Try to use a knife with both hands. And they don't generally require much strength to use, so what's the point anyway?

Only dexterity influences attack speed. As far as I know, if you double-wield, weapons attack just as quickly as they usually would if you one-handed them.

My knowledge of game mechanics is a bit dated, so take this with a grain of salt. But as I recall, in game, damage and accuracy are influenced by strength. A weapon has a minimum strength required to use it, determined (primarily? exclusively?) by it's mass. For each point of strength above that minimum, you get a bonus to damage and accuracy (hence the "This weapon is difficult to use" messages - you aren't getting full benefit because you aren't strong enough). This is capped at some point (+5? not sure).

However, you can wield some (most) weapons in both hands (daggers, short swords, long swords - notable exceptions, one handed only). This means you are using the strength of BOTH arms, rather than the strength of only one arm. So, you can use the two-handed sword. But if you are strong enough to swing a two-handed sword with one hand, you don't really get any benefit by putting your other hand on it.

So, to answer the original question, yes, arm strength is doubled (or thereabouts) when using a weapon with both hands. However, beyond a certain point, more strength doesn't provide any benefit, thus rendering the point moot for smaller weapons. And when your right arm is made of steel, every weapon is small.

The point? More leverage, namely, when used when wrestling to deal more damage like break bone or to free your weapon in a bind. That's just one thought.


So wouldn't duel wielding two weapons double your damage output?
You don't see people duel wield handguns, melee weapons while they're not nearly as precise as guns, they wouldn't be just twice as effective as using one weapon in two hands.


There's a flag in the item script for a weapon being able to be two-handed.

But that sounds about right. So you do get a bit of damage bonus if strength is higher than weapon's requirement. Though I'm sure if you had super strength, using a weapon would still help with piercing damage or range. You would just break the weapon really fast as the drawback; thus you'd want a tough weapon like a mace or a club.

When wrestling is added in IVAN, sure, but it doesn't have that. The system is much simpler.

It does, I think. At least it is very effective. A lategame IVAN character usually has insane dex, so why wouldn't an extremely dexterous person be able to use two weapons effectively? Even in the real world people used two weapons, to have more combat flexibility and to be able to parry much better. The damage and STR isn't everything.

STR already influences weapons enough, I don't think there is any need to complicate it. Weapon breaking according to STR could lead to unplayable games, as some characters reach >400 STR with artificial limbs

That's why Dwarf Fortress's combat is so fun. Even if Ivan's system is much simpler, it can still simulate that anyway. If what Ischaldirh is true, then it's pretty much close to what I'd like, but I'd probably make the cap higher.


Oh no, that's not a problem, dual-wielding should be powerful for an "insane dex" character. It's when they don't have extremely high dexterity and dual-wield. Because dual-wielding is almost always better damage than using a two-handed weapon, then they too end up overpowered when duel wielded. Dual-wielding shouldn't always be so compelling, so two-handing builds are more common. I'll have to back up my argument with documentation to prove than duel wielding just isn't this effective as most games think it is.

EDIT: Like this, and this, and this, and this too, and this as well. Yes, even if you're ambidexter, you still wouldn't attack twice as fast! This is due to how weapons are wielded, redundancy, and mechanical leverage of your body.


By the time you get an arm that strong, you would likely have a weapon that can handle that strength.

If I'm not horribly mistaken, the strength cap for weapons is +10.

Just as a thought, since we already have a strength minimum for one-handing a weapon, why not a dex minimum for dual wielding? Using something short like a dagger isn't too difficult to make use of in your offhand when compared to a longsword that's bound to get in the way used by someone without the skill required.

What I was thinking was giving every weapon a dexterity penalty just like armor, where having bigger weapons has a higher penalty just like heavier armor. This penalty will help a lot, making oversized weapons for dual-wielding a lot worse and will buff hand-to-hand and kicking. You have a good idea too!

That already is in the game.

If you check, larger weapon already have overall lower accuracy ratings than smaller weapons. Adamant dagger will still be rather accurate, but an adamant longsword will be very inaccurate. Dual-wielding smaller weapons is already much more viable than using any larger weapon, until we start to get into superhuman AStr and Dex, and then any real-world analogy falls apart. And two-handed weapons are already stronger than small weapons because they use AStr of both of your hands, pack a bigger punch and are good at blocking.

I'm aware of this, but I think there needs to be more penalties for dual-wielding in-general than lower accuracy and arm strength to be balanced. Dual-wielding should be an alternate tactic, not the normal go-to.

I almost always go for a halberd or two-handed sword. Short swords and whips are pretty much the only thing you are strong enough to dual wield early in the game, and they're terrible at blocking. I get one-shotted (or 2 or 3 shotted) way too often when I try to dual wield, so I rarely do it anymore. I remember when I first started IVAN, I got excited about getting 2 turns per hit, so I'd dual wield a lot, but big weapons seem better long term to me now.

Idk I think the weapon system is pretty well balanced as it is (aside from the weaker sword + shield combo which has been discussed, and improved with shields giving AV protection to the whole body)

Dual wield short swords/whips/daggers:
Pros: more accurate, get 2 hits per turn, require less strength
Cons: get less damage per hit, bad at blocking

Two-handed halberd/big sword:
Pros: more damage per hit, good at blocking
Cons: less accurate, only get 1 hit per turn, require more arm strength

Dual wield halberds:
Pros: almost everything
Cons: impossible without insane strength from artificial limbs, which would also increase your danger level

I think what TheMasterGear is referring to though, is intentionally two-handing a weapon that you could dual wield and adding a damage buff to that, since you're swinging with 2 arms.
But real world, I don't think that makes sense.
Using a dagger, whip, or a sword that was designed for 1 handed use, just becomes awkward if you use 2 hands with it instead.
Instead the player should be encouraged to use a shield or another weapon in their empty hand.

Actually, once you are able to enchant your weapons +5 or more, and you can get extremely accurate halberds, I think they are overpowered compared to smaller weapons. They are able to get the same accuracy but small weapons can never achieve the same damage.

I remedied this problem by buffing their roundness because swords and dagger have cross guards to block with and are very well balanced compared to other weapons in history.

This, this is is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. Dual-wielding weapons that wouldn't be possible to wield due to their size, not just their weight.


It's not that bad, I gave it a try, and I can easily wield a knife with both my hands. But I do agree that small weapons are generally suited for one hand because they're so small and light. But if you had a knife made of weighty material, you better use it in two hands.

I think so, too.


I think you misunderstand. The lower block value is not a problem, it's intentional, because of game balance.


You cannot mix "realism" and superpowers. With as much LStr as it takes AStr to dual-wield halberds, you can kick down weaker walls (you can try it in UT, it's fun!). When the PC has enough AStr to dual-wield halberds, they are basically superstrong and can wield whatever they please.


And can you swing with it at an opponent? Or at least try stabbing it into something. It will be very awkward, if you can even retain your hold.

Swords are one of the best weapons at parrying in real life, and in Ivan, they're one of the worst. While maces are good at blocking, which isn't true in real life.



Ever hear of Shadiversity. He does a series called Fantasy Re-armed. He's really good at taking real-world weapons and giving fantasy races with superpowers the most suitable weapon's that their specific powers would benefit the most from. I feel that realism can be intertwined with superpowers, and it will be all-the-more interesting.


Probably still pretty easy, minus the range I would lose when trying to reach someone with it. You mostly likely one and half hand it, switching to using two hands when you need extra power or for finishing blow. As I said, one-handed weapons are still better designed to be used in one hand, much like two-handers are used for two hands. That's why I didn't give small blades a two-handed flag when making my mod, as I felt that having that feature was a rather moot point.

But I feel like even if we did give a bonus for 2-handing a 1-handed weapon, that bonus would be fairly small. It would still make way more sense for the player to just equip a shield or a separate weapon in their other hand.

Maybe we could increase the blocking ability for swords though? Since long & short swords are the most likely weapons that you would pair with a shield, that makes the sword + shield combo a lot more appealing because both items block well.

I have several points to make really quick.

Point 1) This is IVAN, not Dwarf Fortress or Real World Medieval Combat Simulator 2020. Some concessions to "what the system supports" and "what is cool" should be made. If I want to be able to (theoretically) swing two halberds around, don't you dare try and stop me.

Point 2) Blocking an attack with a mace and blocking an attack with a sword are basically the same. The difference is that swords are generally longer and better balanced, which makes them easier to move around. Recall that in-game, the block formula is affected by weapon accuracy.

Point 3) As envisioned by the original devs, the three (main) combat styles each had their own purposes. Two-handed weapons pack a lot of punch, but are slow and inaccurate. They are excellent for crushing through blocks, but are ineffective against fast, agile enemies. Sword-and-board gives you a lot of blocking potential and respectable offensive power. They are great for dealing with many weak attacks, such as you might deal with when fighting a fast, agile character. Dual wielding gives you many weak attacks that come rapidly - great for overwhelming the limited blocking capacity of a two-handed weapon, less effective against the greater blocking power of a shield. They were supposed to play a sort of rock-paper-scissors. Dual wielding came to prominence mainly because of the power of Saal'Thul, the relative paucity of powerful two-handed weapons (beyond Mjolak), and the ineffectiveness of "tank builds". Whether dual wielding is STILL the dominant playstyle, I don't know.

Point 4) Fighting with two weapons is not the same speed as fighting with one, whether in one hand or in two. What I mean to say is that the amount of time it takes you to complete one attack cycle when using two weapons is not equal to the amount of time it takes you to complete one cycle with one weapon. It's slower. Maybe not half as fast (I don't know the equation) but it is slower.

Point 6) I'm going to make a new thread for discussion of "swords akimbo" discussion. You can find it here.

+

I think the three fighting styles are well defined, designed and with the shield buff even well balanced. Dual-wielding is not really OP, IMHO. See how many enemies use two-handed weapons and are deadly with them.

RE: buffing sword blocks. You would need to balance this change out. The swords are already pretty good. If you boost their block without some counter, you're buffing already good weapon for no good reason.

True, the bonus would be small, shields are indeed the more practical choice, but the option for using a one-handed weapon by itself could prove to be an alluring experience. Not after everything I've heard, it seems that the main problem, even taking ambidexterity into account, that that dual-wielding doubles your attack output. It would in practice, mostly help with quicker easier parrying but weaker strength with the advantage that it can let you attack from two different openings in the opponent's guard.


The reason maces and shields are paired is due to that armored enemies are weak to crushing and war picks, and weapons like hammers, axes, maces, aren't the best for blocking. They need to rely on a shield or armor more so than swords. A sword and shield would be a good parry build, but it wouldn't be easy to beat an armored foe without a well-placed stab in-between their plating. Thus war picks, and maces were popularized during the late Medieval era when plate armor was commonplace. I believe War swords, also know as greatswords or even Zweihanders. These were popular because they had many of the advantages of spears. On top of that, these swords can be held in what's called the "Mordhau grip." Which turns the sword into a makeshift hammer, pick, or mace, depending on the design of the sword.

You should, I agree it can even be done even realistically if you are really strong, skilled, and dexterous. It's just that halberds just too good for dual-wielding as they are now, it might even be the weapon itself that's the problem.


Swords are bottom-heavy where hammer and maces are top-heavy. This makes swords feel much lighter and faster for their weight compared to top-heavy weapons, which feel heavier than their weight; It's basically a leaver work for you vs against you, this is why hammer and maces are so powerful. Because all that mass that's moving faster at the end where the hit "should" connect. Plus, swords have crossguards, unlike other weapons that tend not to have one.


I not a fan of the rocks paper scissors style, but I do agree that those are the prominent styles of play. High heath still seems to be an ineffective style of play.


Oh, thank goodness! That sounds like that could be enough to be balanced. Forgive my lack of knowledge of the code.


Where did point 5 go? ;p

Honestly I had no idea that people thought dual wielding was the way to go lol. Big heavy weapons always seemed the best way to go in my experience, provided you make it past the hedgehogs in UT. Although to be fair I have struggled quite a bit with fungal caves, particularly all the small bats & spiders. Maybe I should give dual wielding another chance.

How quickly does your weapon skill deteriorate from lack of use? I guess I also have never really taken advantage of the new weapon swapping feature. It'd probably be good to alternate depending on the foe, even if that means you don't train your skills as well

Twin Saal'thul was always popular back in 0.50, and my only win (again 0.50) was with twin Neerc se'Ulb. I've always thought sword-and-board, or two-hander, was the cooler option, and in fact for a good chunk of my 050 win I had to use Neerc in both hands. Eventually I built up like 25 or 30-something arm strength and was able to switch to mace-and-shield. It got rediculous when I got gifted a second Neerc after that though...

I've been considering a build where I carry around all three options and switch weapons for the task at hand.