1120 replies to this topic

[the-king112]

No no, thats messed up, dwarves were never shown in the movies or books that they had bows, it just doesnt sound right.

[mike_]

[Mathijs]

Binding's not hard, I'm sure Rob can do that just fine. Also, you won't need to animate anything because they can probably just use the generic guarcher_skl and its animations.

[dojob]

Was it really that bad?

[mike_]

Yeah, none of it is that difficult. Those were just the most difficult phases of it, IIRC.

[Rafv Nin IV]

No no, thats messed up, dwarves were never shown in the movies or books that they had bows, it just doesnt sound right.

I do believe you should read The Hobbit again.

Edited by Ravnin IV, 30 June 2008 - 05:36 PM.

[lorphreak]

No, I love facing dwarves. Or at least did, I havn't tried for awhile......
I just dislike the little buggers

Oh haha

[{IP} Aridor]

No no, thats messed up, dwarves were never shown in the movies or books that they had bows, it just doesnt sound right.

I do believe you should read The Hobbit again.

Seeing as that is the best source for dwarves. That should dominate the debate.

[Myrdin]

you forgetting the thing that axethrowers searve as inti archer unit, becouse they deal melle like ( slash, as its called in other games ) type of dmg, thus cleaning the way for the slow dwarven units.

i still think if you do this itll affect the whole balance, and just screws the " axes axes axes like dwarfs " . . . . really now, whats a dwarf without and axe ? ( hammers included thought )

[Elvenlord]

It's called slash here too
But does it really make sense? For people that have to walk up close and throw axes to be able to beat people with longbows?

Dwarves aren't all about axes. The 13 used swords in the Battle of 5 Armies. Dain's army in said battle didn't have axes.

[myster]

indeed.. but maybe for Balance because they dont have ''any real archer killer'' now... make dwarves more resistant against pierce damage(i think that is the damage normal arrows do?) -> would make sence too because of the superior armor.

[Lauri]

They used mattocks... or however you spell it
Yes, Gimli made dwarves all about axes via the movie... But they use bows, swords, mattocks and all kinda weaponry I would say, just as the other races and factions did..
Axethrowers are indeed unique compared to archers, and unrealistic, but still unique... I would say they get archers... Unlimited supply of arrows is more realistic than unlimited supply of small axes

Not my call though

[Rafv Nin IV]

indeed.. but maybe for Balance because they dont have ''any real archer killer'' now... make dwarves more resistant against pierce damage(i think that is the damage normal arrows do?) -> would make sence too because of the superior armor.

No real archer-killer? Have you never used a battlewagon? They basically kill all swordsmen and archers with their trample. You've just got to micro them so they don't turn and attack, but just keep running over people.

Edited by Ravnin IV, 01 July 2008 - 03:04 PM.

[Myrdin]

as i understand from WERY old posts ( dont even recall how many sites back in this topic ) battlewagons will propably get removed ( HURAAAY !!! ).

as for the axethrowers - logically, i would pick up my weapon after the fight, coz weapons are pretty expensive ( and those mitrhil ones . . . . . ouch, to loose that ), soo it makes sense they would do the same in the "real world ".
next we are speaking about dwarfs, the sturdy, powerful durable dwarfs, that can carry much higher weight than human ever could, and the axes are pretty small ( tomahawk like ).

the last thing - its a game, soo please dont even bother to " think realistic " when it comes to think like axethrowers, its just not sufficient of a reason. Becouse of COURSE there were no real axethrowers in the real world that would carry 20 sharp axes and throw them at enemies. The thing is BECOUSE it is unreall it looks soo damn good in the game, really i just enjoy the wiev of those armored dwarfs throwing deadly steel. Soo i think they fit in the game perfectly, and none archers could replace them, at least not the feeling you get from thoose beardies

btw: Lauri aint mattock a pickaxe ?

[mike_]

Your logic is infallible.

[Lauri]

yeah, it's a pickaxe... sort of, but now your dragging the -axe part into play

[{IP} Aridor]

indeed.. but maybe for Balance because they dont have ''any real archer killer'' now... make dwarves more resistant against pierce damage(i think that is the damage normal arrows do?) -> would make sence too because of the superior armor.

Actually they were extremelly armored. Only mithril was better.

[Elvenlord]

as for the axethrowers - logically, i would pick up my weapon after the fight, coz weapons are pretty expensive ( and those mitrhil ones . . . . . ouch, to loose that ), soo it makes sense they would do the same in the "real world ".
next we are speaking about dwarfs, the sturdy, powerful durable dwarfs, that can carry much higher weight than human ever could, and the axes are pretty small ( tomahawk like ).

Acutally, Men were stronger then dwarves. Dwarves were stronger pound for pound, but men were still stronger. Take in account Caradas. Who was it that cleared away the snow? The two men. Let's go to the river. Who carried the boats? The two men.
For their size, yes, dwarves are stronger, but in the way ants are stronger then us.

[Myrdin]

well thats becouse ants have outter skelet, unlike we humans who have inner skelet

[Devon]

Skeletons? Comon guys

If all dwarven infantry get an axe throw power and standard axethrowers are replaced with archers, they'd still be unique, they'd be able to do some melee type damage from a distance, and it would be more realistic.