Isengard
#61
Posted 23 September 2007 - 10:29 PM
My political compass
There's a story that the grass is so green...what did I see? Where have I been?
#62
Posted 17 January 2008 - 10:54 AM
(raven)
#63
Posted 25 February 2008 - 03:32 AM
I think that Isengard, out of all of the evil factions, lacks an 'edge' to the game. I came to this conclusion from the times that I have played as Isengard (which is rarely...) which is why I don't know how to use Isengard (currently) to its full potential. Anyways, you have the Goblins which do the quick assaults, Angmar has its weird 'edge' to it, MOTE specializes in unit strength (that's what I get from them...) (and possibly illusions- if you have one of the blue wizards), and Mordor does their mass siege and hero power thing. Some might argue that Isengard specializes in getting upgrades fast.... but really? After you gain heavy armour and fire arrows, there's not much you can do with that other than trying to outnumber your opponent.
Here's my suggestion: Why don't you guys alter Isengard so that they specialize in destroying their opponent's resources? The other evil factions appear to focus their energies on rushing in and trying to destroy the enemy (whether it's done in one big horde or in multiple assaults) so why don't you make Isengard a faction that can cripple an enemy's resources and quickly rub them out of the game? The problem that I see with this approach, is that it could make Isengard a late-game faction that would hardly get any use in the early-mid game. Unless you found a way to give Isengard an early-game power to temporarily debuff their enemy's resource production by a small percentage. This would also be useful in multi-player (if you guys managed to get the mod online) massive siege as it would give Isengard another purpose (besides the mines).
Another problem would be that you would have to completely shift Isengard's focus on attacking their enemy's resources first and then taking them out.
If you guys made Isengard this type of a faction, I honestly don't know what kind of effect that this would have on the units currently. Maybe it would give the player an option to either; Assault the enemy as Isengard's depleting their enemy's resources or; To gather a huge force and take out the enemy when they're having trouble getting units out.
This is just a suggestion, what do you all think?
#64
Posted 25 February 2008 - 06:43 AM
Basically, if you can build the units fast enough, and get them upgraded quickly, then get some seige out, its very hard to beat. Especially with mid/late game deathbringer, which are definetly op.
#65
Posted 25 February 2008 - 09:02 PM
Yes, Isengard should be an offensive raiding faction. Imo, dunland units aren't viable enough (Yoda never gets them) and should be available/used earlier, perhaps by becoming cheaper and/or built faster. They should be encouraged to pin the enemy down with Dunland harassment while building up a strong economy to finish the enemy off with their heavily armored infantry and powerful siege units (As they did in the movies). Uruk units should be cheaper and weaker to fit the evil spammy style, but upgrades should have greater effects to represent the strengths of Isengard's industry.
There should be more rewards for raiding in general imo, but I'll go into details on that in the general suggestions topic.
Edited by dojob, 25 February 2008 - 09:03 PM.
Game Replays Forums; I am Panda Bear™
Awesome sig by TravTech PANDA POWER!!!
And please add Bear-mans
#66
Posted 25 February 2008 - 09:09 PM
Also, that isn't how the movies went. He started out with uruks, then brought in some dunlandings for harrasment and just extra troops whie upgrading his uruks...I don't think Saruman would have put the resources into recruited dunlanders instead of uruks if they hadn't wanted to fight the rohirrim themselves.
My political compass
There's a story that the grass is so green...what did I see? Where have I been?
#67
Posted 25 February 2008 - 10:27 PM
-Yes, any unit is better in numbers and zerkers happen to be very good units, i'm not complaining about them.
-Then this EXACTLY supports my vision of Isengard; you start with 2 hordes of uruks, use dunlandings (whose clan steading would be cheaper) to harass and keep the enemy busy, and then u can come in with ur mob of FU uruks. I never said you couldn't go for uruks early btw they just wouldn't be beastly w/o upgrades.
Game Replays Forums; I am Panda Bear™
Awesome sig by TravTech PANDA POWER!!!
And please add Bear-mans
#68
Posted 25 February 2008 - 10:37 PM
Incidently, something I would like to see is a dunlanding creep. Small group of dunland units around a small settlement. Just to add a bit more variety. In fact a few new creeps in general wouldn't be a bad thing. Ent creeps on forest maps, scorpions desert, maybe even eagle and fellbeast creeps....
Anyway, got a bit carried away.. this topic is about isengard so don't discuss that here...
#69 Guest_Guest_Yoda_*_*
Posted 26 February 2008 - 12:59 AM
Lurtz and the rest of the raiders were considerably more than two hordes to start...and again, I don't think saruman would have bothered with dunlandings if they weren't free.
#70
Posted 26 February 2008 - 01:41 AM
and again, I don't think saruman would have bothered with dunlandings if they weren't free.
May as well get rid of the dunland clan steading then, eh and go back to inn and summon only? If they're going to be useable, then they may as well be useful, am I right?
And about starting uruks: You can't worry about exact numbers in this mod. That would be like saying "You should be able to get 10,000 uruks", but that's beside the point; I just want Dunlandings to be useful. Unit mixing ftw!
Edited by dojob, 26 February 2008 - 01:42 AM.
Game Replays Forums; I am Panda Bear™
Awesome sig by TravTech PANDA POWER!!!
And please add Bear-mans
#71
Posted 26 February 2008 - 08:15 PM
My political compass
There's a story that the grass is so green...what did I see? Where have I been?
#72
Posted 26 February 2008 - 09:55 PM
As for unit mixing, you're always the one telling me how elves aren't that useful at all for arnor, and dunedain only moderatly so
Yes and I want them to be better so that they're worth putting into my army.
Game Replays Forums; I am Panda Bear™
Awesome sig by TravTech PANDA POWER!!!
And please add Bear-mans
#73
Posted 27 February 2008 - 03:55 AM
On another thread (General Suggestions, I think?) I believe that we briefly discussed the idea of giving the Isengard Fortress a tier 3 (is that what you guys are calling them?) upgrade. Basically we skimmed over the idea of having Saruman mount a "Tower of Orthanc"-like upgrade and casting spells from there. But from the sounds of it, Isengard will become overpowered with this upgrade.
Anyways, my main point to this post is that something needs to be changed with Saruman!! The other 4 wizards are much more offensive than Saruman is currently; You got gandalf with his Lightning sword and Word of Power spells; Radagast with his eagle mounting and Poultry spells; Romestamo (sp?) summons his rock giant; And Morehinetar (<SP!) has his illusions and his light blast spells. Saruman just gets spells that basically blasts away enemies for moderate/minor damage, a leadership, and an experience boosting power. This would be much different if the other wizards weren't so offensive. I don't think that Saruman could hold his own against the might of Gandalf's Word of Power and Isatari Light spells and Romestamo's rock giant (plus more spells). If you guys are going off of the idea that Gandalf the White and the Witchking were equal in power, then I would think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Saruman and the Witchking would have been equal in power as well.
Here's my suggestion... Obviously Saruman needs a moderate-minor boost in speed and defence. I think I might have heard that you guys were already modding Saruman's stats...I could be wrong. I don't mind his attack with the extra knockback effects.... I think that the normal attack could cause more damage (not knockback) but that's just a small opinion of mine. I believe that we discussed before (in the general suggestions thread) that Saruman's lightning power should be buffed more. Well I think that Saruman's lightning power should be equivalent to the Isengard Fortress' lightning power except Saruman's new Lightning power should either have a couple more bolts or a larger AoE. I told you guys before that I honestly don't know Isengard that well, so if this suggestion doesn't help then please excuse it.
Instead of the Fortress' tier 2 upgrade being the lightning storm, I think that it should be a darkness (assuming that the regular darkness boosts your own units' stats...) that debuffs the enemy's stats for like a minute and some. I hate to ask another naive question but: Are there going to be tier 3 fortress upgrades? I believe that RJ talked about it, but I think that it could've easily been an idea that was scrapped.
Now onto something other than Isengard, one thing that I would like to see with maps are more destructible buildings (like the tower falling over and causing damage) and more wild units. With the wild units, though, I would like to see something like wild dunlendings where they have a camp (or whatever) that has a flag that you can capture. I have several ideas bouncing in my head for the whole "Mordor purchasing Harad/Rhun as allies" for the evil campaign but I'll save that for another thread.
Edited by Scryer, 27 February 2008 - 03:56 AM.
#74 Guest_Myrdin_*
Posted 27 February 2008 - 12:46 PM
As to continue, Crosbows ARE NOT resistant to arrows as the tool tip says, lower range thatn Rotwk ( i like BFME2 crosbows more though, stronger but medium small range ).
Uruk pikeman . . . wtf they are smaller than wood cutting orc !
Sentry warg pit lacks the " release " button from orig game, and warg have low sight, soo its not doing anything unless the units literaly " knock on the door ".
For saruman . . . . he had heavy armor in BFME2 - cool finally usefull, in RotwK screwed again - medium armor, someone already said that sarumans not offensive enough, well just give him better armor and itll balance itself
Balistas are absolutely good for nothing, its just big crossbow, and i can tell you balista is able to shot pretty quickly ( low reload time ) becose you load it sooner than loading huge rocks on catapults. ( my hobby is hystory, mostly medieval age, even Roman empire used balistas, and it took em less time to load the arrows )
soo try to fix the attack rate at least
well and DONT remove barbarians, i hated it at BFME2, that they were just Inn unit, maybe just lover the cost on 250
( btw, wtf Uruk Pikeman tier 2 unit ??? no counter against early cawalery ! fix !!! )
costs itslef ( crosbows 350 ! - wtf, 300 . . . but 350 ?!!! WTF )
all this im not saying as one of creators, but as PLAYER and this mode is made for players soo, at least read this
#75
Posted 27 February 2008 - 09:33 PM
My political compass
There's a story that the grass is so green...what did I see? Where have I been?
#76
Posted 27 February 2008 - 09:38 PM
think about this with ballistas: they are not just arrows, they are really big and heavy (also the shape would make them rather unwieldy) and the loading process is imo, more difficult than that of a catapult or trebuchet. both catapults and trebuchets jsut need to be pulled back and a projectile thrown in, but a ballista projectile must be lined up quite a but more, so its fine imo. you must also look at the cost; as far as i know (i dont use isengard much) ballistas are pretty cheap and you should be able to get a lot more than the 1000 resource trebuchets.
i dont really have anything to say about the rest of it so...
dont worry, we will always read and consider everything that everyone says.
#77
Posted 27 February 2008 - 09:43 PM
My political compass
There's a story that the grass is so green...what did I see? Where have I been?
#79
Posted 27 February 2008 - 10:12 PM
BUT, as I would hate to use archers then, I think it's fine with them
But trebuchets, balistas, and everything else that fires a big prosjetile, should be able to kill your own units... If not, it's getting to unrealistic, and we don't want it too unrealistic, do we?
The 4th Age version 0.8 has been released: Link
#80
Posted 27 February 2008 - 10:38 PM
but yea, fine as it is for me.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users