376 replies to this topic

[Dalf32]

ok im not sure whether you are arguing to limit their numbers or not but i like your points. keep the pitchforks and switch out the weapons of the normal hobbits. slings/bows rather than stones, axes/daggers instead of sticks, and give them a tinge of stealth ability. this could be interesting in game with slower stealth units (slower than elves taht is) that are decidedly weak but cheap and good early distracters rather than brute fighters.
id be happy with changes similar to these...

[{IP} Aridor]

Limiting the number of any unit is silly. Even hero hordes.

[Dalf32]

thank you. thats what ive been saying this entire freakin time.

[{IP} Aridor]

Though what would be cool would be too make it so you had a set number of civilian units. And you would have to send them into a building to "train" them. Then and only then would you be able to train units. I am not advocating that we do this, it would just be cool to see some RTS try this.

[Jaguar6]

That is a good idea, kind of like the Peasent unit for Rohan, but what would you give some of the factions like Mordor?

Edit: When I said renaming the Hobbit Pitchforks to Hobbit Militia and giving them randomized farm equipment, I meant things like pitchforks (duh), hoes, scythes, and so on all of which are used by common people, and would be good anti-cavalry weapons.

Edited by Jaguar6, 24 August 2008 - 05:56 PM.

[CIL]

Though it is valid to say that though they were central to the story they weren't central to the battles. This is very true, so clearly we don't want them for any faction then Arnor, whose storyline intersects the only time it is noted that Hobbits fought in large numbers. We know of two instances, the battle of greenfields and the fall of Fornost. Now neither of these battles had a large amount of hobbits, but they were still there. A larger force at the Battle of Greenfields, but this was their homeland they were defending, and a company of archers to Fornost. To correct a minor annoying error by Crazy Lib, a company is not less than thirty people. It is around 100.

Do you seriously call 75-100 large numbers when the opposing and other allied sides probably had more than 1000? Anyways, the size of a military company is up for dispute. Two words... Grey and Company. While it is possible that all of the people were worth more than 3 Orcs, hence the name, that does not seem likely. First off, their cloaks were grey, a factual observation. There were also 20 or 30 of them (can't remember), another factual observation. That leads me to believe that a company in Middle Earth consists of about 30 people. It's pointless though, there were only 2 or 3 times when Hobbits ever fought. But if you're not going to limit them, just make them weak and important in only one specific area to the point where people are only going to buy a few of them.

[Jaguar6]

"Numbers do not win a battle." Any ways, the number of soldiers in a company all depends on what country you live in, but company can also mean a group of people. So it all depends on where you live, and what you are using it for. Hobbits are already weak, so don't weaken them any more, if anything make them have battalions of 10.

[dojob]

Look, CIL, company sizes have nothing to do with skirmishes. You can go around limiting Hobbits in campaign or whatever fits the lore, but here are no balance or gameplay reasons to change them from as they are atm in skirmish games.

They're already weak, already come in small hordes (5 hobbits per horde), what more do you want?

Edited by dojob, 24 August 2008 - 06:08 PM.

[Dalf32]

currently hobbits match up pretty poorly with most other units in the game. it takes like 4 battallions of them to take out a single battallion of uruks taht isnt fighting back (raiding farms or something like that). if you are inclined to get a lot of them (to the point that they make up a strong portion of your army) there is a very good chance that you will lose.

and agreed with jaguar that company in this case may not necessarily be used in the military form but instead meaning a group of people (much akin to the word fellowship in meaning).

[{IP} Aridor]

Though it is valid to say that though they were central to the story they weren't central to the battles. This is very true, so clearly we don't want them for any faction then Arnor, whose storyline intersects the only time it is noted that Hobbits fought in large numbers. We know of two instances, the battle of greenfields and the fall of Fornost. Now neither of these battles had a large amount of hobbits, but they were still there. A larger force at the Battle of Greenfields, but this was their homeland they were defending, and a company of archers to Fornost. To correct a minor annoying error by Crazy Lib, a company is not less than thirty people. It is around 100.

Do you seriously call 75-100 large numbers when the opposing and other allied sides probably had more than 1000? Anyways, the size of a military company is up for dispute. Two words... Grey and Company. While it is possible that all of the people were worth more than 3 Orcs, hence the name, that does not seem likely. First off, their cloaks were grey, a factual observation. There were also 20 or 30 of them (can't remember), another factual observation. That leads me to believe that a company in Middle Earth consists of about 30 people. It's pointless though, there were only 2 or 3 times when Hobbits ever fought. But if you're not going to limit them, just make them weak and important in only one specific area to the point where people are only going to buy a few of them.

Would you want to limit the number of rangers? They were few in number. The entire idea of limiting the number is silly and defies for what an RTS stands. It is pointless. If you want it that set into exactly what happened then play scripted maps. It is only simulating a what if. What if the hobbits fought in greater numbers. Good grief, if one carried your logic to its end then you should limit the number of everything so that it is in proportion. It is either all or nothing. Just because you don't like to see lots of Hobbits, doesn't mean that somebody likes to see lots of tower guard, which were even fewer in number. You see if you give in to one unit being limited, to make somebody happy, you have to limit all units. You cannot advocate a change without a strong logical base to support it. In a military sense a company is around 100. In a numbers sense a company is just a large group. It is larger than a group. But when the hobbits are refered to the context is that of the military. So logically we assume that it is using company in the precise term. The same thing actually applies to the Grey Company too. There is a subtlety to the word in that during the middle ages a company was as small as the organization got. So though a full fresh company would be around 100 a group of 20 could still be a company because there was nothing smaller. Since the hobbits were leaving straight to war and were fresh it must be assumed they were a full company. Whereas the Grey Company was battle worn.

[Jaguar6]

Does it really matter how many Archers went to Fornost, all that matters is that some did.
Why don't we just stop this whole "limit units idea" right now, we all agree that it's pointless. I don't even know who started it

Can we discuss this instead

When I said renaming the Hobbit Pitchforks to Hobbit Militia and giving them randomized farm equipment, I meant things like pitchforks (duh), hoes, scythes, and so on all of which are used by common people, and would be good anti-cavalry weapons.

I can give you more examples of farm tools if you want. I come from a farming family so I can tell you all about farming equipment.

[Scryer]

Does it really matter how many Archers went to Fornost, all that matters is that some did.
Why don't we just stop this whole "limit units idea" right now, we all agree that it's pointless. I don't even know who started it

Can we discuss this instead

When I said renaming the Hobbit Pitchforks to Hobbit Militia and giving them randomized farm equipment, I meant things like pitchforks (duh), hoes, scythes, and so on all of which are used by common people, and would be good anti-cavalry weapons.

I can give you more examples of farm tools if you want. I come from a farming family so I can tell you all about farming equipment.

I think that giving the Hobbit pitchforkers a variety of farm weapons, could make a nice aesthetic change when the team has the time to pay attention to aesthetic details (<grammar! And I'm not gonna edit that sentence)

But I would only consider giving them multiple farm weapons (and such) only for a better appearance.

Edited by Scryer, 25 August 2008 - 04:07 AM.

[Dalf32]

not my precious pitchforks!
as you probably already know id much rather we keep them using pitchforks. how many weapons could you possibly come up with and that hobbits would have access to that could be used as anti-cavalry?
i shall reiterate my previous opinion; fine with me if you make another hobbit unit taht used miscellaneous farm equipment (not sure what their purpose would be though) but you cant replace the pitchforks. you probably cant replace the basic hobbits either because they are really only useful for the fact that they have both a ranged weapon and a melee weapon. unless you can come up with some farm weapons to replace the stick/rock combo.
although, on the renaming issue i still wouldnt mind renaming the basic hobbits into hobbit shirriffs but pitchforks are fine.

[BMWteen]

i shall reiterate my previous opinion; fine with me if you make another hobbit unit taht used miscellaneous farm equipment (not sure what their purpose would be though) but you cant replace the pitchforks.

Well u could use them to improve farms like said erlier ...

[Devon]

Dalf, it doesn't matter as long as rob sets them doing specialist damage.

And then there's scyths and hoes and whatnot...

[Jaguar6]

There are plenty of weapons that originally came from farm use, and would be great for fighting cavalry. Here are some examples...
The Scythe
http://upload.wikime...eUser_fx_wb.png
The Bill
http://upload.wikime...ledBillhook.jpg
The Guisarme
http://upload.wikime...isarma_SXVI.jpg
The Mattock (sorry I couldn't find a better picture, they are usually longer than this one.)
http://upload.wikime.../a9/Mattock.jpg
The Fork (Tridents and Pitchforks fit into this category.)
http://upload.wikime.../2/2f/Forks.jpg
The Hoe
http://upload.wikime.../41/Cangkul.jpg
The Rake (for people like Sam )
http://upload.wikime...px-SoilRake.jpg


I don't see why they shouldn't use these, they did in the lore, and people did in history. I just think that it is silly that they would use pitchforks, when not everybody has pitchforks, and a bill would work even better. Either way they still slaughter cavalry, why do you think peasents used them against knights?

Edited by Jaguar6, 24 August 2008 - 09:41 PM.

[Dalf32]

not that i know what a bill is used for, but it would work as well as pitchforks would because being anti-cavalry requires the use of a stabbing motion not a slashing motion. big difference there so i dont htink the first two would work really.
im curious as to what the 3rd one is used for, it looks very much like it could be used as a pike...
hmm a mattock would be used in more of a hacking motion which again would not help you much against cavalry and unless those ones depicted in the last picture are considerably longer (im assuming that they are as shown, not very long) they would not be very useful. however if they are longer they could be perfect.

[Devon]

What's wrong with slashing? Hack a leg off and horses don't do much damage...

[Jaguar6]

Actually when you attack cavalry you try to kill the rider. You would use the hook on the bill to either pull the rider off, or slash the horse to bits as Yoda said, don't forget that you could also hack at the guy on the horse, they would basically ride into a giant swinging blade The Guisarme is actually more of a combination between a bill and halberd, but you could use it to thresh wheat. The pictures of the Rake and Hoe only show the top, they can be about six feet long (in human standards), which is longer then most pitchforks, pitchforks are only four to five (at most) feet long you know.

[Dalf32]

the rake and hoe pics werent up when i posted so i was referring to the forks.

the point of pikes is that the rider runs into you, not the other way around. a hacking/slashing motion makes you no more effective than your everyday, run-of-the-mill, sword-wielding soldier when it comes to dealing with mounted units.
basically the problem with slashing a leg off of a horse is that it would be ridiculously difficult. you would have to get close enough to the horse to be within reach of his leg. then you would have to actually attack the moving leg with enough power to cut through the bone. all the while avoiding being trampled or killered by the rider.
with a pike you simply jab at the horse or rider from the front or slightly off to the side.