1120 replies to this topic

[Devon]

Well, it fits them hella more than isengard

[mike_]

Explain your reasoning, please.

[Devon]

Explain yours

[mike_]

Alright;

In the films, the armies of Isengard were simply tasked; they were given a weapon, the appropriate armour (bowl-crested helms for crossbowmen, slitted ones for the pikesmen, regular punched-out peepholes for the swordsmen, etc), and pointed where to go. This helped them fight like a machine - everyone did their own specific job when and where they were supposed to do it.

The Dwarves, on the other hand, don't seem to have been divided without this kind of foresight. Instead, from what can be gleaned from the Lore (books ), they fought according to their vocation - which was geared towards melee, not ranged attacking. Some were better at other skills than others, such as Gloin and Balin's job as fire-starters and scouts in "The Hobbit". Thorin was the best shot with a bow, so he always led the way. The Dwarves of the Iron Hills preferred to fight with two-handed mattocks or a simple shortsword and shield - either was up to their discretion. They likely trained for years with whichever weapon they preferred, not being just handed a pike and sent off to war.


Bam.

[Devon]

The armies of Isengard were bred for their purpose. That's why they acted as a machine, they'd been designed for it. The uruks who were trained with crossbows picked up crossbows, and therefore were very efficient at using them. The uruks trained with pikes had pikes, and therefore operated as a machine with them.


Dwarves on the other hand fought with what they liked, and it makes sense for dwarves with similar weapons to fight together. The swords would be provided if they had no other weapons available for use, otherwise they would take up their preferred weapon. But they would probably be better able to adapt their weaponry and fighting style than uruks would.

[mike_]

...

That's exactly what I just said. The system is good for Isengard because that's how they operated. The Dwarves did not.

[Silky]

i wasn't trying 2 get dwarf rangers in the game just archers

btw did u read da stuff under da rangers in games workshop, it makes sense.
and even thou mike yelled at me iv got 2 agree with him on this(and it is HIS idea)

[mike_]

I wasn't yelling at you specifically, I just strongly dislike the idea and concept (since Gee-Dub came up with it...) and don't want to see it here as well

[Silky]

well i guess it doesn't fit with the currant dwarf faction as it dose with lore(and the lotr strategy game )
but i would really like 2 see at least 1 dwarf archer unit or hero in the game.
Were did the Axe throwers come from anyway?, has there ever been a mention of dwarfs throwing axes in the lore( i mean as a ranged unit )
cus i've never read them

[mike_]

Not really. That's EA's fault. But I would like to see them in as well

[Berethin]

I think axe throwers were put in because EA seemed obsessed with dwarves and axes.... I mean, in the Hobbit, there was no mention of any ax and dwarf connection whatsoever; it mentioned mattocks, like Mike mentioned, but no axes, anywhere, to the best of my knowledge.

As far as it went in the books, Gimli alone was mentioned as having an ax. And, from that, EA gave nearly every single dwarf unit in the game an ax. (Save, of course, for the occaisonal hammer. Even the halberds that the phalanx carry are an axe-pike combitnation.) Now, it certainly makes their faction different, and I think that's what the root of the issue is. The dwarves have axe throwers because they're different.

And, admittedly, a good solid ax seems to fit a dwarf.

Actually, come to think of it, there was more mention of dwarves and axes in the appendices, if I recall correctly. Correct me if I have forgotten any other references. Maybe I've been too hard on EA after all.

Edited by Berethin, 24 January 2009 - 01:29 AM.

[Silky]

Heres an idea, Change the name dwarves 2 the dwarf holds
(and maybe phlanix 2 wardens)

[dojob]

I wouldn't mind a new dwarf unit that could toggle axes/bows and moved quick (for a dwarf ofc) that replaced Dwarven ax throwers, and then Guardians and maybe phalanxes (they really, really need a name change ) got the ability to throw axes.

The reasoning for having a toggle is so that it wouldn't necessarily be a basic archer unit like every other faction has, but more of a light attack unit, which is something they lack without going for lvl2 forges. This addition would also make Archery range BOs more viable and enjoyable since ATs sucked the last time I checked and really aren't worth it.


As for unit upgrades, perhaps people weren't playing Dwarves much back when we had that argument before, but I'm having a blast with them atm. I can mine/guardian rush, wagon rush, turtle, and focus my mid-game on a number of things from upgrades to siege to pikes to heroes to Dale Archers; in short, there are plenty of strategies for them and they of all factions have like the only hero or unit that's good for bastardly and stealthy hit-and-run tactics. A few tweaks would be enough for them imo, like the ones I mentioned above, which would add an archery range start to the list of viable openings (or at least a buff to AT's ).

As for Isen being able to upgrade their units, I doubt even Saruman would have the need or even ability to genetically alter uruks so that some have better sight for shooting arrows while others are faster and better for raiding or something. From the looks of it, he just bred them all for the general purpose of fighting and handed them whatever weapons were on hand. Why bother to specialize soldiers when u can breed them all for a general purpose, give them whatever weapons u feel like (which is what ur doing in upgrading them), and then send them off to go kill. They're just shitty uruks, they're gonna die anyway so there's no point in dedicating too much time to them when u can make tons of similar ones.

Dwarves on the other hand have more free will and are ofc more important to their own race, so they'd have the time and dedication to be the very best at their own weapon choices. And, in order to balance out the costs of adding weapons, the units themselves would need to cost less, which would downgrade the Dwarves' emphasis on basic toughness and quality regardless of weaponry, which wouldn't just be bought on the fly. On top of this, they already have customizable wagons and more unit customization may take away from Rohan and Angmar.

Isengard is the industrial faction; they have very good siege engines, their main production buildings are furnaces for making weapons, and they have a beast of an economy, and by the lore, uruks suck by themselves. However, weapons and equipment such as crossbows and big shields made these spamlings into a dangerous fighting force, so it makes perfect sense to be able to make ur uruk spamlings for a little money from the pits and then arm them with weapons that make them worth something, which would greatly emphasize Isengard industry and infantry while keeping with the idea that orcs, goblins, and the like are worthless and spammable without them.

Edited by dojob, 24 January 2009 - 02:47 AM.

[mike_]

...hah!

[{IP} Aridor]

Well the Uruks each had a very specific design in the movie for each type. The Pike men had an eye slit that forced them to look up. The Swordsmen had helmet like the pike's one it faced forward and had a spike on the forehead for head butting. The Miners had big broad rims on the back to prevent the rubble from crushing them. The Beskerers had the eye hole helmet that was desgined to be filled with blood and then put on.

[dojob]

Ok, so upgrade them with specialized equipment then

[mike_]

Like I've been saying for like eight months now

[Gr1m]

The main issue with the axe throwers, lore aside, is it seems to me to be a massive waste of resources. I mean, comparable to an arrow, a throwing axe has a lot more work needed to put into it to make it work right, and it uses a LOT more metal, weighs a fair bit more and realistically isn't as effective against troops in even moderate armor. It is also a fair bit more phsyically exhausting than use of a bow.

And don't even get me started on axe throwers in towers...

[Silky]

so i'm guessing dwarf holds is a stupid name

and i agree with gr1m(especially the towers part)

Edited by Silky, 26 January 2009 - 03:12 AM.

[Wanderer∞]

At least there aren't any dwarves throwing siege hammers