Middle-Earth:Lord of the Mods (XI)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Mithadan
By the way... Do we really have to stick to this "offensive line" vs. "defensive line" thing, when (so I hear from folk like Kryten) most military "units" in history would be both attackers & defenders? Couldn't we instead have a "regular soldier (both A & D flags)" line vs. a "shock troops" line? (Plus, of course, missile unit lines and cavalry [fast] unit lines.) I suppose it's too late to bring this up, and I'm sure to get the hell shot out of me for the idea anyway! :cry:[/B]

I also prefer not have so simplified "lines" of "offensive" and "defensive" units. On the other hand, marking both A & D doesn't work well for the AI (it assigns the strategy randomly, instead of using both).
 
As nearly all my posts are rants, I don’t believe I need a warning. Just keep it in mind if I sound a little too offensive.
RRnut-
It requires artillery to assuredly win battles on open ground. And that is something I absolutely want to avoid. I really want to nail this hard. I want, absolutely, to avoid having to use artillery to get a kill ratio of 1 to 2. Basically, kill ratios of 1 to 2 are essential (IMHO) on emperor, 1 to 3 on demigod, or 1 to 4 on deity. Please!!!! make deity winnable without field battles requiring major artillery support!
Not sure I understand you. You are going to have to elaborate what you mean by kill ratio. Do you want a swordsman to be able to kill 4 spearman on Deity? Do you want 1 spearman to be able to kill 4 swordsman on Deity?
I also do not understand what you mean by regular battles on open land being harder than normal game (see reply to embryodead). And as far as artillery goes, who said anything about artillery?
RRnut-
Have just lost a long drawn out deity offensive with a C3C foe getting way to far ahead. Hence the rant. Am way to tired of artillery
My original intention was to have absolutely no artillery available, except for some late age siege for Mordor. You were the one who campaigned for it in your unit lines. I have no desire to have artillery.
RRnut-
Want to avoid major use of artillery in field battles. All my unit lines have been planned around this. I don't have the ability to comment of the unrealisticity of artillery in a ME universe tonight, but I'm sure that sometime I can.
LoL, you’re a strange person! ;)
Any type of artillery was absent in mrtn and my unit lines and the concept of ME artillery (outside of late age mordor) didn’t show up till you posted your lines.

I would drop siege in a New York second, and then dance all over its carcass! :mischief: I never liked the idea of artillery in game. If we do add artillery, then it will help take _CITIES_ not open field battles. As there is nothing different from the stats I posted and that of regular civ 3.

Spearman 2
Swordsman 3
10 point shield difference

Pikeman 3
Knight 4
(knight can run, but huge shield [40]difference)

Musketman 4
Knight 4
(knight can run, [10] shield difference)

Rifleman 6
Cavalry 6
(equal shields, no resource for rifleman)

The offender and defender in the last two unit comparisons are equal in shields. _However_ in the last two in our game, the offender costs 20 more _but_ has 2 more attack. Whats the ‘big deal’ here? Am I missing something, or are you guys not making any sense whatsoever?
RRnut-
As far as easterlings being mongols, sounds fine, as we have a decent number of units that work for those civs. However, they were IMHO a far more infantry centric civ then those were. Was why I included persians and russians. So basically we have an infantry centric middle to north but not extremely far eastern civ? Ok, so no real world representation. sounds good
I agree.
embryodead-
I have to agree this time with RRNut - you can't really make artillery essential to win battles, simply because the AI can't use it. For some reason, PCH tries to force more and more powerful defense (from increased improvements/fortresses boni, to stats), but for the gameplay's sake, it's no good. PCH, you already raised the defense bonuses, and now you lower the attacker/defender ratio to 5/4??
_________
-edit, deleted rant
_________

Aside from that: Civ3 never had a 5/3 or a 5/2 ratio to begin with. In fact ratio’s were the very last thing in my mind when making the unit stats up. Explain to me how the ‘ratio’ is implemented in civ3, and then I might understand.

We can’t use the 5/3 ratio:
top attacker\top defender
ERA1: - 3\2
ERA2: - (4\3) or (5\3) or (6\4)
ERA3: - 9\6
ERA4: - 12\8

Nor could we use a 4/3 ratio:

top attack\top defense
ERA1: - 4\3
ERA2: - 8\6
ERA3: - 11\8
ERA4: - 13\10

5/3 makes us go out of our way for no reason whatsoever and allows little room for early adjustment between races. 4/3 has too big of differences for later game. The top offender of era 4 would be 13, while the top defense of a backwards civ would only be 8.
That is way unbalancing.
Why should we follow a ratio? :confused:
If that is what you mean, then simply post it, so we can decide without having to do any cruel math.
The Civ3 we are able to edit has no mathematical solution, and in few places has it followed any specific path such as ratios.
I didn’t remove any unit stat ratio, because no civ3 unit ratio existed.
embryodead- And if I get the usual argument that you should need a lot of units to siege a city - sure, but this way the best way to win will be simply don't attack, just see the AI kill off all his forces on you, then siege whats left with the support of catapults
I have better ways to spend my time! The only thing altered in there that matters is increasing the fortify bonus by a whole 5 points:rolleyes:!
And if you look at the terrain stats, the only raise in any defense bonus came from you! You wanted forest DFB higher, just as you accepted DFB fortresses higher. I agreed, of course.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1380944#post1380944
 
Would be ok with having one line of units with the highest A/D values. I'd prefer not because it's not normal civ, but would be ok with it. It would make battles rather different. IMHO its a bit late to make that change, butwe could if there is a lot of support for it.

As far as artillery, what I mean, is simply to raise the over time values of both attack and defence. It will have the advantage of making the AI better as well, as the Ai doesn't use artillery effectively.

RRnut
 
PCH, was I so arrogant or what? Thanks.

Anyway, Civ3 has ratios of 3/2 and 4/3, depending on the era. I don't say we should follow that directly, I just say that a ratio of 5/4 makes attacking quite pointless. You presented the civ3 offensive/defensive units quite strangely...

swordsman vs spearman has ratio: 3/2 (cost: 3/2)
knight/infantry vs pikeman has ratio: 4/3 (cost: 4/3, +30 for mobility of knight)
cavalry vs musketman has ratio: 3/2 (cost: 4/3)
tank vs infantry has ratio: 8/5 (4/2.5) (cost: 10/9)
armor vs mech.inf. has ratio: 4/3 (cost more or less as above)

The 3/2 and 4/3 for stats are prevailing through the whole game. At the short times in which musketeers come and knights are still the best unit (and later the same with cavalry & rifleman), attacking doesn't much calculate.

I don't say the defensive bonuses we came up with were bad (what about additional defensive buildings then? that didn't came from me). But in conjuction with increased defenders' stats, that's too much. What's that sense you make that we are missing?

EDIT: to make myself more clear. I do not care about any ratios, I just think you made the default defensive units of 2nd and 4th era too powerful.
 
embryodead-
PCH, was I so arrogant or what? Thanks.
No, it wasn’t you at all. I always get annoyed when I have to use math. It just seems that we (the project) is going slowly, and I am getting quite bothered by the pace, nothing personal, I’m just fed up with it is all:).
embryodead-
Anyway, Civ3 has ratios of 3/2 and 4/3, depending on the era. I don't say we should follow that directly, I just say that a ratio of 5/4 makes attacking quite pointless. You presented the civ3 offensive/defensive units quite strangely...
I believe the ratio’s adjust more with points. I believe a Modern Armor has 24 attack, compared to the Mech Infantry’s 18 defense? This still has a 1.3 ratio, but you see how big the difference is stat wise? This is partly necessary, because there are more developed cities and therefore higher defense bonuses. As you pointed out, a 18 defense unit in a walled city actually has 27 defense. I think we should stay away from high costs on this level (as you wanted earlier[now?]). And again, there is that race thing.
-Yes, I could have done a better job arranging the posts, but it was the quickest way to type down the different stats. I tried to differentiate between the stats by the non division slash. ( \ )
Next time I will use the 1.3 way of going about it.
embryodead-
swordsman vs spearman has ratio: 3/2 (cost: 3/2)
knight/infantry vs pikeman has ratio: 4/3 (cost: 4/3, +30 for mobility of knight)
cavalry vs musketman has ratio: 3/2 (cost: 4/3)
tank vs infantry has ratio: 8/5 (4/2.5) (cost: 10/9)
armor vs mech.inf. has ratio: 4/3 (cost more or less as above)
Here we go again;)
I don’t like the ratio system, as in some cases its hard for me to tell what it is being compared to. I would rather you simply said “boost up the 3 era offensive by 1 attack, and the 4 era by 2”. Then you talking my language ;). I don’t think you can go up all the way to tanks and armor. We have only four units on each side, shouldn’t we rather stay between an offense of 3-12 than 2-24?
embryodead-
The 3/2 and 4/3 for stats are prevailing through the whole game. At the short times in which musketeers come and knights are still the best unit (and later the same with cavalry & rifleman), attacking doesn't much calculate.

I don't say the defensive bonuses we came up with were bad (what about additional defensive buildings then? that didn't came from me). But in conjunction with increased defenders' stats, that's too much. What's that sense you make that we are missing?
Hey, I voted for 2 building lines you know. The idea is to have a comprehensive army. More than just a stack of swordsmen, or a stack of cavalry. In civ3 the units start with infantry and move to cavalry, then to motorized units. What if we did something similar, the 3'rd era Cavalry surpassed the 3rd era offensive infantry, but came later and was surpassed by the 4th era offensive.
embryodead-
EDIT: to make myself more clear. I do not care about any ratios, I just think you made the default defensive units of 2nd and 4th era too powerful.
I tried to go up by 2 each time. Otherwise there is no room for the orcs (who would have a unit with defense of 2,3,5,7).
Again, I’m sorry that I buggered you with the ratios.
 
I think that I find my self agreeing with ED more now.:eek: Anyway, a comment on PCH's method.

Let's say that you start out with a 3 attack swordsman and a 2 defense spear. If you add 2 defense to the spear, then, to keep things equal, you must add 3 attack to the sword.

hence,

3/2
6/4
9/6
12/8

These units are essentially equal as far as relative values. ALso, I VERY GREATLY think that the ratio should go UP as time increases. This is because other technological advances increase the power of the defense. These include the tower buildings, and metropolises. Therefore, although I'm willing to go with such a course, I think that the 4th age there is just too small.;)

Re: my rant: forget it.

Re: my introducing artillery. I thought that the other list that I had was only a blank outline with only land units and minimal differentiation over civ lines. I thought that all other land units would be included, but just weren't mentioned. then when I made the different unitlines, I added them in. Anyway, I'm thinking on the role of artillery. Will get back to that soon

RRnut

Here is what I've been working on:
 

Attachments

  • lotm unit line proposals civ by civ.zip
    5.9 KB · Views: 84
Originally posted by PCHighway
I believe the ratio’s adjust more with points. I believe a Modern Armor has 24 attack, compared to the Mech Infantry’s 18 defense? This still has a 1.3 ratio, but you see how big the difference is stat wise? This is partly necessary, because there are more developed cities and therefore higher defense bonuses. As you pointed out, a 18 defense unit in a walled city actually has 27 defense.

Nope, it's not like that. Civ3 combat system is based on proportions only. Combat between Armor (24) and Mech. Inf. (18) is identical to Knight (4) and Pikeman (3). If you add defense bonuses it's still the same ie. with Walls: Armor (24) vs. Mech.Inf. (27) and Knight (4) vs. Pikeman (4.5). Proportions are the same, and chance to win the combat are identical.

I don’t like the ratio system, as in some cases its hard for me to tell what it is being compared to. I would rather you simply said “boost up the 3 era offensive by 1 attack, and the 4 era by 2”. Then you talking my language ;). I don’t think you can go up all the way to tanks and armor. We have only four units on each side, shouldn’t we rather stay between an offense of 3-12 than 2-24?

Hey, you know that I prefer small differences between eras, so I would never propose 2-24 values. I quoted the civ3 values to show the prevailing proportions between offensive and defensive units. What RRNut just posted is a practical use of what we had in mind ;) (+1 attack in 2nd era, and +2 in 4th, right?)
 
Originally posted by embryodead
I also prefer not have so simplified "lines" of "offensive" and "defensive" units. On the other hand, marking both A & D doesn't work well for the AI (it assigns the strategy randomly, instead of using both).
If you don't mind me asking, embryodead, what do you do then? Is there some compromise, or some way to have the AI not require separate lines for offence and defense?
 
Originally posted by Mithadan
If you don't mind me asking, embryodead, what do you do then? Is there some compromise, or some way to have the AI not require separate lines for offence and defense?

You can do it (it's done ie. in Napoleonic Conquest), but IMHO it's pointless. The AI only needs 2 ground units: defensive and offensive, and will build the best one from each group, most of the time (with some percents left for weaker units if available). Because of that, making unit line with both A&D marked will simply make the AI build only that unit... pretty pointless isn't it?. Or if there is a better unit for one of those strategies, AI will build the better unit anyway, so again, it's pointless.

I just don't stick to lines, and assign units basing on what graphics are available and what this civ should or could have. But I understand PCH's argument about less variety possible in this kind of mod, and the neccessity of more uniform unit lines.
 
RRnut
I think that I find my self agreeing with ED more now.:eek: Anyway, a comment on PCH's method.

Let's say that you start out with a 3 attack swordsman and a 2 defense spear. If you add 2 defense to the spear, then, to keep things equal, you must add 3 attack to the sword.

hence,

3/2
6/4
9/6
12/8

These units are essentially equal as far as relative values. ALso, I VERY GREATLY think that the ratio should go UP as time increases. This is because other technological advances increase the power of the defense. These include the tower buildings, and metropolises. Therefore, although I'm willing to go with such a course, I think that the 4th age there is just too small.;)
I’m not willing to go with the upping ratio course;). You see, if I advance slowly, my adversary will have a 6 point bonus on my best defense unit by the third era. That is, IMO, too much. I believe that the attacker should have 2 more offense in each era. Battles will not only take place in cities. A 6 point attack over a defense unit ruins any sort of ‘in the field fighting’. While it looks alright for defending a metropolis, it is much worse for defending cities and towns. All battles won’t be taking place in metropolis or barricaded Fortresses. Wouldn’t 12 attack unit against a 6 defense unit be the same as an archer attacking a warrior? Do we really want a warrior to be the best defender?
In any case, I can agree to these stats, but gone are the days of a single civ being able to stay alive against two aggressive neighbors.
embryodead-
Nope, it's not like that. Civ3 combat system is based on proportions only.
Well, Mrtn and yourself drilled it into my head that numbers don’t matter, and it’s just about the ratio’s between units.
I can accept the above list posted up their (RRnuts list), are we all set? ;)

One more thing. What would happen if we flagged missile unit with the 'artillery' flag? If we didn't have any other artillery, would the AI use a 0 range bombard unit correctly?

I don't want the AI not paying attention to the cavalry and missile units.
 
PCH,

I'm not sure if that would work to assign artillery to archers. after all, they can't bombard. but then again, the AI never bombards with artillery. Test it.

I think that the AI will pay attention to the cavalry (it does porduce both horsemen and swordsmen, right?)

Re: artillery, I have some ideas. 4 steps:

1. eliminate all land based artillery, except for the first strike of archers.

2. Create a new unit "mobile siege camp." this unit should have stats 0-1-1, transport capacity of 10, and the transports air units only flag. also shouldn't be attackable by stealth units. Perhaps a wagon that when fortifies looks like a colony?

3. Create an offensive artillery. It would be an air unit basically similar to the bomber in stats except a range of 2. Can rebase (to both cities and the mobile siege camp carrier) and bomb.

4. Create a defensive artillery similar to fighter, except it can't rebase or load. this would simulate siege engines mounted on city walls which would be counter battery support.

Make the above units available only to orcs and men and dwarves. (Gondor did use siege engines, just not in the time of its decline). Should come at an optional tech directly after the tech that gives metropoloses.

If you like my unit lines, then I better get to work!! Have a number more to do. Have a sketchy Easterlings list, but it is minimal on "prototype" info and graphics info. In that matter, I'd like comments on the realisticity of all my other lists.

Thanks,

RRNut
 
RRnut-
I'm not sure if that would work to assign artillery to archers. after all, they can't bombard. but then again, the AI never bombards with artillery. Test it.
Nothing to test it with yet, the gamma isn’t ready. I will when it is ready though:). Embryodead may have tried, or heard of someone who has tried it, and might be able to tell us. I belive is a unit has bombard strength, and is flagged as artillery, the AI will assume thats what it is? My theory, anyway;).

RRnut-
I think that the AI will pay attention to the cavalry (it does produce both horsemen and swordsmen, right?)
Good point, but I still am not so sure. The AI will build Warriors after they study Warrior Code also. Could it be they anticipate the upgrade to swordsmen? Or in the Horseman’s case, the upgrade to knights? The cavalry line is a good thing to have, even if it is just used as a ‘fall back’, in case of no iron. Which reminds me, maybe for this reason we should make iron not required for knight-like units, some special cases may exist, however.
RRnut-
Re: artillery, I have some ideas. 4 steps:

1. eliminate all land based artillery, except for the first strike of archers.

2. Create a new unit "mobile siege camp." this unit should have stats 0-1-1, transport capacity of 10, and the transports air units only flag. also shouldn't be attackable by stealth units. Perhaps a wagon that when fortifies looks like a colony?

3. Create an offensive artillery. It would be an air unit basically similar to the bomber in stats except a range of 2. Can rebase (to both cities and the mobile siege camp carrier) and bomb.

4. Create a defensive artillery similar to fighter, except it can't rebase or load. this would simulate siege engines mounted on city walls which would be counter battery support.
This is actually quite interesting :).
1.) First strike of archers?
2.) Why air units? Do you mean cruise missiles? Cool idea for a unit though, the AI will not utilize it, methinks.
3.) I don’t like the airplane as artillery idea in this instance. But if the AI can handle it, we will include it, see how it goes.
4.) I really like the idea of making immobile artillery for city installments, and if it is as you say, that Gondor used stuff like this, we can give it to them. But honestly I don’t remember ready anything about wall mounted ballistas. Could you give me a page or chapter to look in?
RRnut-
Make the above units available only to orcs and men and dwarves. (Gondor did use siege engines, just not in the time of its decline). Should come at an optional tech directly after the tech that gives metropolises.
Sounds like a good place.
RRnut-
If you like my unit lines, then I better get to work!! Have a number more to do. Have a sketchy Easterlings list, but it is minimal on "prototype" info and graphics info. In that matter, I'd like comments on the realisticity of all my other lists.
Ok listen up. No combining civs! ;)
Arnor and Gondor should not get the same units a Númenor early on. They should get the basic ‘edain’ line. I like the idea of giving the Mannish civs many flavors, but for the other civs, well, just don’t go there yet. I have some name issues, Edain Orcfighter was unpleasing to the eyes, but I understand how hard it is to think of fitting names. The format you wrote them up was a little hard to follow, I had to keep checking back to your other notepad documents to remind myself of which units go where.

I think we can use much of this, but now is not the time for flavor units, when we haven’t decided on the regular units yet. I feel that we will simply need to come back to these later, as we can’t fit them in until all races, with all unit lines are worked out and agreed on.

Also, Utah’s Lion Warrior would look kick ass as either the Haradrim Footman, or Warrior.
 
PCHighway: Well, Mrtn and yourself drilled it into my head that numbers don’t matter, and it’s just about the ratio’s between units.
I had to borrow aaglos Drillakilla, but finally the fell deed was done. :D

There's been countless whining about the fact that the AI don't use land transports, so I'm fairly sure RRNuts idea won't work.
PCHighway: 1.) First strike of archers?
He mean the zero range bombard.
 
Hello,

I know that the AI uses carriers. Would it make a difference if the carrier is a land unit or a sea unit? would have to test that.

As far as Gondor using siege engines:

dont think that it was ever directly described as ballistas, just engines. is all that I can remember, don't know about the Silamarillion.

ROTK chapters 4 (page 804 in my edition )
When Orcs set up great siege engines outside walls:

"There were none upon the city walls large enough to reach so far or stay the work"
Meaning that there were some small ones.

Chapter 10 (black gate opens, page 869)

Walls and towers ... "not even if it had brought thither engines of great power"

meaning that they knew and had used such things in the past.

Re: combining civs. Why not??? afterall, the civs mentioned were essentially equivilant at certain times, right? Of course, I understand that it's to complicated for a beta, or alpha, or perhaps a version one. If you don't like all that I won't put it in.

Re: format. Its just typing. I didn't do hardly any formatting. I don't really think its very very well balanced, but it can do for a start. I think that i'll just do the rest of the men (rename and rebalance easterlings, and haradrim) then present it all in a more orderly fashion.

In an offside note: does anyone have the HOME series? Somewhere in there there was an earlier writing which discribed the Noldor army after it came over from Valinor, which could be useful for naming and unit stats. any help?

RRNut
 
Originally posted by PCHighway
I’m not willing to go with the upping ratio course. You see, if I advance slowly, my adversary will have a 6 point bonus on my best defense unit by the third era. That is, IMO, too much. I believe that the attacker should have 2 more offense in each era. Battles will not only take place in cities. A 6 point attack over a defense unit ruins any sort of ‘in the field fighting’. While it looks alright for defending a metropolis, it is much worse for defending cities and towns. All battles won’t be taking place in metropolis or barricaded Fortresses. Wouldn’t 12 attack unit against a 6 defense unit be the same as an archer attacking a warrior? Do we really want a warrior to be the best defender?
In any case, I can agree to these stats, but gone are the days of a single civ being able to stay alive against two aggressive neighbors.

But the proportions are just like in civ3 + we have increased defensive bonuses, so I don't see a problem.

Originally posted by PCHighway
One more thing. What would happen if we flagged missile unit with the 'artillery' flag? If we didn't have any other artillery, would the AI use a 0 range bombard unit correctly?

But how does it use these units incorrectly now? From my experience, missile units work perfectly. AI keeps them in attack stacks and also in cities. I don't see a reason to test anything here, you would even see the outcome. What effect is that suppose to give? That AI would keep archers in cities, like it does with catapults? He does that already anyway.

Originally posted by RRnut
I know that the AI uses carriers. Would it make a difference if the carrier is a land unit or a sea unit? would have to test that.

Yes it makes a difference. AI can't use land transports.

Originally posted by RRnut
I think that the AI will pay attention to the cavalry (it does produce both horsemen and swordsmen, right?)

It doesn't. PCH is right - you can see them both in game mostly because AI did produce some of those units earlier, or upgraded. Many tests were made on this matter, and the outcome is, to make the long story short, that the AI produces the best unit from a given type (offensive/defensive) 90% of the time (with the remaining percents given randomly to other units, even the crappy ones).
 
Another note regarding "combining civs." If you don't like that, just think of it this way:

3 basic edain lines.

A high line used for Numenor, Gondor, and Arnor.
A Middle, or Twilight, line, for ROhan and the Northmen.
A low line for the Easterlings and Haradrim.

Actually, was thinking along a bit different line for the last two civs. same or similar stats in most cases, but generally different graphics. the Haradrim are easier to get graphics for, considering all the arabian and african flavor units we have. Even some Civ ones!! (ansar warrior?)

Re: The fact that the AI doesn't use land transports. Even if it doesn't, it does use carriers. and even if it doesn't use carriers, well, it won't make a difference because it deousn't use typical land artillery either!

Re: names, had a lot of trouble thinking of things. Another advantage of combined lines is that we need fewer graphics and names. If anyone sees something that he doesn't like in the names, pls speak up. my imiganation isn't all that good.

RRNut
 
I'm just going to point out that I hear that in the books, the haradrim are dressed like the movie easterlings, and the book easterlings like movie haradrim. Or at least thats an arguement I tend to hear. There is a lot of arguement against it and stuff, but ah well. Either way, its easier to take the movie route which is what people identify it as






The Black Gate is Closed, RoTK
"These were Men of other race, out the wide Eastlands, gathering to the summons of their OverLord; armies that had encamped before his gate by night and now marching in to swell his mounting power."

Easterlings marching on the Black gate. And now for their armor we look at Gollum describing them:

"More Men going to Mordor. Dark Faces. We have not seen Men like these before, no Smeagol has not. They are fierce. They have black eyes, and long black hair, and gold rings in their ears; yes, lots of beatiful gold. And some have red paint on their checks, and red cloaks; and their flags are red, and the tips of their spears, and they have round shields, yellow and black with big spikes."

Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit, RotK
And now for the Haradrim we listen to Mabling:

"These cursed Southrons came now marching along the roads to swell the Hosts of the Dark Tower."

And now we get a look a Haradrim warrior fallen from the Mumakil:

"His Scarlet robes were tattered, his corslet of overlapping brazen plates was rent and hewn."

Book
Haradrim: armored in bronze and mounted on Mumakil. Seen being attacked by Faramir and co, At the battle of Pelennor Fields

Easterlings: robed and spiked shields. Seen marching to the Black Gate, At the battle of Pelennor fields


I learned that on another set of forums
 
Hello,

Imho the men that gollum describes are Haradrim, as they are coming up out of the south route from Harad.

Imho the easterling unit that we have is more like a haradrim.

RRNut
 
Does anyone have any opinion regarding the air units as artillery? Two points regarding that.

1: even if the AI can't use it, it can't use normal artillery effectively either. They can use fighters and bombers effectively however, so perhaps it might work.

2: even if it doesn't work effectively, its more realistic. you have to expend a significant effort to bring siege weapons out into the front, which wil preclude its being done in all but the most difficult situations.

Finished a base haradrim and easterling lists, will look over them tomorrow and then post.

RRnut
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom