Middle-Earth:Lord of the Mods (XI)
- Thread starter Celeborn
- Start date
- Status
jobiwan7
Jedi Scholar
AlcTrv
Only goes to one thread.
Berserkers DEFINATELY should be offensive shock trops.
Same reasons as just posted
Same reasons as just posted
Theoretically thats how it should work, except for the fact that orcish Berserkers never really existed!
I dont see anything like that in Tolkiens work, anyway. If I had it my way, the Uruk-hais with less armor would upgrade to the armored ones. But it wouldnt fit into the age system.If you look at the units, both have the same defense of 7, one is cheaper than the other, thus this unit is pointed to defense. course we could just get rid of the orcs cheap defense unit, and free up the graphics for a possible Half-orc UU for Isengard.
Had some trouble with these graphics as well as the names.
DWARVES
1st Era Offense: Dwarven Warrior
Attack: 3
Defense: 2
Movement: 1
Shields: 35
Extra: +1hpb*
2nd - 3rd Era Offense: Naugrim Warrior
Attack: 8
Defense: 6
Movement: 1
Shields: 65
Extra:+2hpb
4th Era Offense: Mansion Guard
Attack: 11
Defense: 8
Movement: 1
Shields: 105
Extra: +1hpb
2nd-3rd Era Defense: Khazâd Axe Warrior
Attack: 4
Defense: 6
Movement: 1
Shields: 55
Extra: +1hpb*
4th Era Defense: High Guard
Attack: 6
Defense: 10
Movement: 1
Shields: 90
Extra: +1hpb
* Should these unarmored troops have a HPB?
For Dwarves, does the word Baruk mean Axe? Should we use "Baruk-Khazâd"?
AlcTrv
Only goes to one thread.
Baruk-Khazâd! Khazâd-ai-Mênu!
Axes of the Dwarves! The dwarves are upon you!
I still prefer "Dwarven Axemen" over "Khazad Baruk(man)"(made up).
I know its loyalty to the books, but its kind of like the elven names.
Especially for the elven names, when we were discussing how to say elven swordsman in elvish, I feel it makes it hard for more casual players, and even I can't speak Elvish. I love the books, but I still prefer in discussions of it to speak of Rivendell than to Imladris, even though Imladris is more correct
Axes of the Dwarves! The dwarves are upon you!
I still prefer "Dwarven Axemen" over "Khazad Baruk(man)"(made up).
I know its loyalty to the books, but its kind of like the elven names.
Especially for the elven names, when we were discussing how to say elven swordsman in elvish, I feel it makes it hard for more casual players, and even I can't speak Elvish. I love the books, but I still prefer in discussions of it to speak of Rivendell than to Imladris, even though Imladris is more correct
the mormegil
Emperor
The Dwarven unit line seems incredibly strong compared to the Orcish one. Is that deliberate?
The last defensive unit for Dwarves is
Attack: 6
Defense: 10
Movement: 1
Shields: 90
Extra: +1hpb
The last offensive unit for Orcs is
Attack: 10
Defense: 7
Movement: 1
Shields: 80
So that means you can produce 9 Orcs for every 8 Dwarves, but then the Dwarves' extra hp point combined provides more than an extra units worth of hp.
So now you have more hp with the Dwarves than with the Orcs for the same price, and on top of that the Orcs' attack is the same as the Dwarves' defense. And that's before defense bonuses are taken into account.
The last defensive unit for Dwarves is
Attack: 6
Defense: 10
Movement: 1
Shields: 90
Extra: +1hpb
The last offensive unit for Orcs is
Attack: 10
Defense: 7
Movement: 1
Shields: 80
So that means you can produce 9 Orcs for every 8 Dwarves, but then the Dwarves' extra hp point combined provides more than an extra units worth of hp.
So now you have more hp with the Dwarves than with the Orcs for the same price, and on top of that the Orcs' attack is the same as the Dwarves' defense. And that's before defense bonuses are taken into account.
I agree AlcTrv
It is semi-'deliberate' as the Dwarves are supposed to be slightly tougher than the Men. Perhaps we should raise the two fourth era units by a cost of ten, then lower the Orcish Uruk-hai by 5, for game-play purposes. While we are at it we can lower the offense to on the Mansion guard to 10, but add an attack point on the High Guard (7).
It is semi-'deliberate' as the Dwarves are supposed to be slightly tougher than the Men. Perhaps we should raise the two fourth era units by a cost of ten, then lower the Orcish Uruk-hai by 5, for game-play purposes. While we are at it we can lower the offense to on the Mansion guard to 10, but add an attack point on the High Guard (7).
PCH, it would have been better if you treated the dwarves as the orcs in how you present the units. I'm a lazy bugger, so I want the conventional name for the unit, but I don't need the link to the unit, as I already have it. Giving both would be good. 
AlcTrv has a point. The orcs should have crappier units, but they should be cheaper. And the dwarves should be "handicapped" by expensive units.
Giving both would be good. AlcTrv has a point. The orcs should have crappier units, but they should be cheaper. And the dwarves should be "handicapped" by expensive units.
Orcs: I'd prefer having the "snagga" upgrade to the "yrch," not the other way around. Snagga is derogatory, Yrch is just the Elvish root word for orc (i.e., yeeeaaaacccchhhhh!). I think it would be better to call the wee-orc-default-unit by the derogatory word.
Dwarves: I never did like the word "guard" for a unit name. Hmmm...
Isengard: a possible half-orc UU????? Whaddyamean, possible? The half-orc IS the Isengarder UU!!!
-----
Edit: Further thoughts on orkish names...
Remember the infighting between the Orcs of Mordor and the Orcs of the White Hand (for example?) Remember the infighting between the Orcs of Barad-dûr and the Orcs of Minas Morgul (for another example)? Remember the Mountain Orcs -- the goblins of the Hobbit? Here's a thought: instead of having to make up whack names for various sorts of orc units throughout the ages, we could just correlate orc allegiances (roughly, if need be) to the names of the orc units in each era. Something like this:
Default: Snagga (okay, this one's not an allegiance of any kind)
Offense upgrade 1: Orc of Angband (or "Angband Orc" if that's nicer)
Defense upgrade 1: Goblin (okay, not an allegiance either)
Offense upgrade 2: Orc of Barad-dûr (or "Lugbúrz Orc" if that's nicer)
Defense upgrade 2: Mountain Orc (this could just as well be a goblin, but I already used that name)
Offense upgrade 3: Uruk-hai
Defense upgrade 3: Orc of Minas Morgul (or "Morgul Orc" if that's nicer)
So tell me how much my idea sucks, and why!
Dwarves: I never did like the word "guard" for a unit name. Hmmm...
Isengard: a possible half-orc UU????? Whaddyamean, possible? The half-orc IS the Isengarder UU!!!
-----
Edit: Further thoughts on orkish names...
Remember the infighting between the Orcs of Mordor and the Orcs of the White Hand (for example?) Remember the infighting between the Orcs of Barad-dûr and the Orcs of Minas Morgul (for another example)? Remember the Mountain Orcs -- the goblins of the Hobbit? Here's a thought: instead of having to make up whack names for various sorts of orc units throughout the ages, we could just correlate orc allegiances (roughly, if need be) to the names of the orc units in each era. Something like this:
Default: Snagga (okay, this one's not an allegiance of any kind)
Offense upgrade 1: Orc of Angband (or "Angband Orc" if that's nicer)
Defense upgrade 1: Goblin (okay, not an allegiance either)
Offense upgrade 2: Orc of Barad-dûr (or "Lugbúrz Orc" if that's nicer)
Defense upgrade 2: Mountain Orc (this could just as well be a goblin, but I already used that name)
Offense upgrade 3: Uruk-hai
Defense upgrade 3: Orc of Minas Morgul (or "Morgul Orc" if that's nicer)
So tell me how much my idea sucks, and why!
the mormegil
Emperor
I don't get it. Why would Orcs of Minas Morgul be working for Angmar (Is that a civ in this? I can't remember) or Isengard? 
Personally, I would prefer to "make up whack names" than have Orcs of Minas Morgul working for Isengard. Unless you want to have different names for the Orcs for different civs (Maybe that's what you mean...
).
Personally, I would prefer to "make up whack names" than have Orcs of Minas Morgul working for Isengard. Unless you want to have different names for the Orcs for different civs (Maybe that's what you mean...
).
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
I rather agree with the mormegil - "Orc of Angmar" would sound odd for Mordor and so on, not to mention "Angmarric Orc of Angmar" sounding pretty redundant.
Why not simply names like "Goblin Archer", "Orc Axemen", etc? You could throw in the odd "Warrior Uruks" etc for good measures.
Shouldn't snaga (lit "slave") be for the Orkish worker unit?
If there's any race-specifc orc units, "Orcs of the Eye" (Mordor) and "Orcs of the White Hand" (Isengrard) suggest themselves.
Why not simply names like "Goblin Archer", "Orc Axemen", etc? You could throw in the odd "Warrior Uruks" etc for good measures.
Shouldn't snaga (lit "slave") be for the Orkish worker unit?
If there's any race-specifc orc units, "Orcs of the Eye" (Mordor) and "Orcs of the White Hand" (Isengrard) suggest themselves.
Yes, well since Mordor and Angmar (let alone Isengard) don't exist in the First Age and even part of the Second, I thought it would be fine having Angband-type or even Mountain Orc-style names for units of those eras -- sort of like having Gaulish units for the French civ early-on (as in some mods) or conversely, like having Byzantine units for the Greek civ later-on (as in some other mods -- and much to Xen's chagrin, I'm sure). Seeing how we cannot change the name of civlizations over time in our game, this seems to me a fair compromise.
Having to conjure up whack names (and I quote) like a "goblin spearman" that upgrades to an "orc spearman," or an "orc axeman" to an "orc swordsman" seems...well, too whack. First of all, at least my suggestion is an attempt to map the texts onto a game engine that isn't entirely receptive. Second, moving from yrch to goblin to orc to uruk (for example) contributes to the misunderstanding that there are great differences of type between these largely linguistic divisions. PJ did us all a disservice by making the uruk-hai Sauruman's unique possession, and I'd hate to continue on in that tradition in any way. Third, showing a progression of units by a progression of weapon types (axe to sword, spear to pike, or whatever you want) bows to the Civ mentality again -- that of technological progress, something which is decidedly absent in Middle-Earth (except in terms of gunpowder, perhaps). It's not as if early orcs were equipped more poorly than their later cousins. Of course we have to do this statistically (by making later units "stronger"), but I'm suggesting we not do this linguistically -- so that Middle-Earth doesn't have to bow completely to the hardwired presumptions of the game.
As to Isengard, my understanding was that they'd get a mannish unti line until the last era, when we could simply give them "Orcs of the White Hand" and half-orcs (same graphics, if need be). I wasn't suggesting that Morgul Orcs work with Isengarder Orcs (although they did, poorly enough, in the Two Towers). My suggestion was rather that Angmar and Mordor use First Age-type names in the first eras, or Mountain Orc names in later eras -- heck, we could have Angmar leaning towards Mountain Orc names, and Mordor using even Dol Guldur-type names...?
As to snagga, I don't know that calling the orc worker a "snagga" would be better than calling the weakest default unit a snagga. Yes, it's literally a "slave," but it was used by the uruk-hai (see TT) of one faction (Barad-dûr or Isengard, I can't remember) in derogatory reference to an uruk of the opposite faction. This suggests a figurative (i.e., derogatory) use of the term, rather than a literal use (i.e., descriptive of what tasks the guy undertook). It would probably be better to use human slaves as Mordor's worker unit anyhow.
Having to conjure up whack names (and I quote
) like a "goblin spearman" that upgrades to an "orc spearman," or an "orc axeman" to an "orc swordsman" seems...well, too whack. First of all, at least my suggestion is an attempt to map the texts onto a game engine that isn't entirely receptive. Second, moving from yrch to goblin to orc to uruk (for example) contributes to the misunderstanding that there are great differences of type between these largely linguistic divisions. PJ did us all a disservice by making the uruk-hai Sauruman's unique possession, and I'd hate to continue on in that tradition in any way. Third, showing a progression of units by a progression of weapon types (axe to sword, spear to pike, or whatever you want) bows to the Civ mentality again -- that of technological progress, something which is decidedly absent in Middle-Earth (except in terms of gunpowder, perhaps). It's not as if early orcs were equipped more poorly than their later cousins. Of course we have to do this statistically (by making later units "stronger"), but I'm suggesting we not do this linguistically -- so that Middle-Earth doesn't have to bow completely to the hardwired presumptions of the game.As to Isengard, my understanding was that they'd get a mannish unti line until the last era, when we could simply give them "Orcs of the White Hand" and half-orcs (same graphics, if need be). I wasn't suggesting that Morgul Orcs work with Isengarder Orcs (although they did, poorly enough, in the Two Towers). My suggestion was rather that Angmar and Mordor use First Age-type names in the first eras, or Mountain Orc names in later eras -- heck, we could have Angmar leaning towards Mountain Orc names, and Mordor using even Dol Guldur-type names...?
As to snagga, I don't know that calling the orc worker a "snagga" would be better than calling the weakest default unit a snagga. Yes, it's literally a "slave," but it was used by the uruk-hai (see TT) of one faction (Barad-dûr or Isengard, I can't remember) in derogatory reference to an uruk of the opposite faction. This suggests a figurative (i.e., derogatory) use of the term, rather than a literal use (i.e., descriptive of what tasks the guy undertook). It would probably be better to use human slaves as Mordor's worker unit anyhow.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
I wouldn't object to the various evil 3rd Age factions getting "Angbandic" units in the 1st Age. I would object to, say, Angmar getting a unit called "Orcs of Morgul".
I don't really see that a progression "Orc Axeman" -> "Orc Swordsman" or some such really indicates technological progress; swords and axes belong to about the same technological level, as do most of the "medieval" weaponry that's relevant for LotR. I was thinking the names were simply going to follow the graphics. But if you can think up a sensible list without resorting to such, fine by me. As said, I'll complain if we get "Mordorian Orcs of Angmar" or the like.
Yrch, BTW, is plural. The singular is orch.
Question: Can anyone recall if there's a mention of actual Mordorian cavalry anywhere? IIRC, all of the Witchking's cav at Minas Tirith were Easterling and Southron allied contingents, and can't recall any being mentioned at the Morannon. I do unfortunately not have the books at hand to check.
Edit: Re: snaga, I'm aware of its usage as an insult, but I'm not entirely happy with the thought it would be the name for what'll be the best Orc unit in its role in its time. No big deal, however.
I don't really see that a progression "Orc Axeman" -> "Orc Swordsman" or some such really indicates technological progress; swords and axes belong to about the same technological level, as do most of the "medieval" weaponry that's relevant for LotR. I was thinking the names were simply going to follow the graphics. But if you can think up a sensible list without resorting to such, fine by me. As said, I'll complain if we get "Mordorian Orcs of Angmar" or the like.
Yrch, BTW, is plural. The singular is orch.
Question: Can anyone recall if there's a mention of actual Mordorian cavalry anywhere? IIRC, all of the Witchking's cav at Minas Tirith were Easterling and Southron allied contingents, and can't recall any being mentioned at the Morannon. I do unfortunately not have the books at hand to check.
Edit: Re: snaga, I'm aware of its usage as an insult, but I'm not entirely happy with the thought it would be the name for what'll be the best Orc unit in its role in its time. No big deal, however.
![[Ant]Wimp](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/35/35417.jpg?1475248323){kind=avatar}
[Ant]Wimp
Warlord
some wargs (or wolfriders)perhaps as mordorian cavalry? Dunno for sure...
the mormegil
Emperor
I agree. I'd like to see some wargs for the evil civs if there aren't already.
@TLC: I can't remember any mention but if Easterlings and Southrons were used for cavalry, then why don't we use them in the mod?
I think we could use Snaga as a name, I'm happy with it. And since we're stuck for names I think if we get an opportunity for a more different name (that makes sense) we should take it.
@TLC: I can't remember any mention but if Easterlings and Southrons were used for cavalry, then why don't we use them in the mod?
I think we could use Snaga as a name, I'm happy with it. And since we're stuck for names I think if we get an opportunity for a more different name (that makes sense) we should take it.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Thing is, Easterlings, Southrons and Mordor are three different civs in the LotM. Allowing "allied" units to be built by Mordor may be necessary from the gameplay POV if there's no canonical mention of Mordorian cavalry, of course.
Mordor taking over the Harad with Southron cav might be something to see ...
Mordor taking over the Harad with Southron cav might be something to see ...
Sorry for not keeping up with the replies, Ive been horribly busy the last few days writing annotated bibliographies and other hellish things . I launched a private beta MSN groups site, which I will send the link out to all of you when we actually get to the beta. For now it is an easy way to organize stuff, and post information more easily.
The Last Conformist: Calling an Orc or Dwarf a Axeman is never a good idea, IMHO.
Orch doesnt have the same ring to it IMO.
My idea with Yrch and Naugrim was to use words they were referred to early on by the Elves, for earlier more primitive units. Because of the lack of names, I was going to make it Snaga Warrior and then a separate unit Snaga Slave (worker). Names arent easy, Ill give you that, but in LOTR the word seemed to be used as referring (albeit insultingly) to a grunt type of unit.
As for cavalry- it would be rather stupid to assume that the force of Goblins and Wargs from The Hobbit thought of the genius inclusion of a wolf rider themselves as opposed to being driven by the Dark Lord. We see references to beings riding dogs such as Luthien. Also, the Wargs in the Fellowship of the ring had to be driven at least in spirit by the dark lord. I can not recall, but didnt Tolkien mention something about those Misty Mountain orcs mounting the Wargs?
Mithadan: I didnt say anything about a possible UU for the Isengard civ, I said something about freeing up graphics, that could be used as a possible UU. If I didnt say it right, thats what I meant. Personally I would rather build a Morgul Warrior than a Swordsman as the orcs.
. I launched a private beta MSN groups site, which I will send the link out to all of you when we actually get to the beta. For now it is an easy way to organize stuff, and post information more easily. The Last Conformist: Calling an Orc or Dwarf a Axeman is never a good idea, IMHO.
Orch doesnt have the same ring to it IMO
.My idea with Yrch and Naugrim was to use words they were referred to early on by the Elves, for earlier more primitive units. Because of the lack of names, I was going to make it Snaga Warrior and then a separate unit Snaga Slave (worker). Names arent easy, Ill give you that, but in LOTR the word seemed to be used as referring (albeit insultingly) to a grunt type of unit.
As for cavalry- it would be rather stupid to assume that the force of Goblins and Wargs from The Hobbit thought of the genius inclusion of a wolf rider themselves as opposed to being driven by the Dark Lord. We see references to beings riding dogs such as Luthien. Also, the Wargs in the Fellowship of the ring had to be driven at least in spirit by the dark lord. I can not recall, but didnt Tolkien mention something about those Misty Mountain orcs mounting the Wargs?
Mithadan: I didnt say anything about a possible UU for the Isengard civ, I said something about freeing up graphics, that could be used as a possible UU. If I didnt say it right, thats what I meant
. Personally I would rather build a Morgul Warrior than a Swordsman as the orcs.No worries, man.
Gotcha. I don't want Third-Age contemporaries having each other's units either. Angband-y
)) units would be good for 1st Age units for Mordor & Angmar, that's agreed then. Not quite sure what to do for Angmar in the Second Age, perhaps giving them "Mountain Orcs" (think Gundabad, Misty Mountains, etc.) would be the right idea...
Hmmm, yeah. Fair enough, although in regular Civ this is precisely what the progression from Archer to Spearman to Swordsman to Pikeman to Longbowman (etc.) is supposed to indicate, namely progressing technological prowess. If I can avoid even a hint of that, then I will. Plus, I'm not so comfy with having the graphics dictate what the unit names should be...us modders should be in charge of that, not the guys who make the graphics that we have available (as great as those guys are)!
Good point, pertaining to PCH's original list? On my ordering, the snagga as the default unit (attack & defense value of 1) might be the best orc unit of its time...but that's relative, and most players will be concerned to upgrade to a better orc unit in a hurry! I mean, I think it best to call our weakest overall orc unit a snaga. (I notice you've been spelling it correctly, and I haven't!
)
Good call. PCH is right, though, it doesn't have the same ring. I suppose if we did keep this word as the moniker for our default orc unit, we could do a Multi-Unit of that little wee "snotling" graphic and that could justify the plural...? Like a little pack of piranhas...
-----
Re: Mornhothic (
) Cavalry... I recall that the Rohirrim complained of Mordor raiding their lands for horses in the Two Towers. Or was it that Wormtounge had arranged some sort of "trade" agreement with Mordor for horses? I can't recall why exactly Mordor wanted them. Did Mordor need stock to breed the original Ringwraith steeds with? Was Mordor using them to mount Southon or Easterlings on them? The Mouth of Sauron rode a horse, but he's hardly typical...At any rate, I can't imagine an orc riding a horse! And typically, I think, if Sauron had any Mannish units fighting for him, they were fighting as "allies" and not under the banner of the Lidless Eye (or the Skull-Moon of Morgul, for that matter). So Southron or Easterling units for Mordor per se would be out, in my books. Although for those civs themselves, I think the mormegil is on the money. Mongol and Arab cavalry would do nicely for Easterlings & Haradrim respectively -- provided we can either show textually, or make a safe assumption that these civs rode horses (instead of just harnessing them to wagons or riding oliphaunts, respectively).
I think [Ant]Wimp's idea, then, is the best for Mordorian cavalry: Wargs (does a "Warg" = "an orc on a wolf [i.e., a 'wolf-rider'], or is a "Warg" a particularly nasty sort of wolf? I forget.
) -- i.e., an orc riding something lupine. (Angmar could have cavalry, I guess. Maybe the Witch King convinced or coerced Mannish leftovers to fight for him?) I don't know what you're on about, PCH, with the Mountain Orcs riding wolves/wargs in the Battle of the Five Armies being their own idea or Sauron's... I'm pretty sure the fact that they DID ride into that battle suggests convincingly that Tolkien did mention those Mountain Orcs mounting wolves/wargs. 
Ahhh, gotcha. Could have been my misreading, don't worry about it in any case.Originally posted by PCHighway
I didnt say anything about a possible UU for the Isengard civ, I said something about freeing up graphics, that could be used as a possible UU. If I didnt say it right, thats what I meant
We're not told (not in the Two Towers, at least). I've always assumed it was to get steeds for the nazguls, as it was only black horses stolen.Originally posted by Mithadan
Re: Mornhothic (
Angmar allied with one of the three parts of Arnor (Rhudaur), so they could have those men as cavalry, if needed. But we know that the orcs of the Misty Mountains rode wargs, and we said that they were to be included in "Angmar and friends".Originally posted by Mithadan
I think [Ant]Wimp's idea, then, is the best for Mordorian cavalry: Wargs (does a "Warg" = "an orc on a wolf [i.e., a 'wolf-rider'], or is a "Warg" a particularly nasty sort of wolf? I forget.
A warg is a nasty wolf.
Yes, they rode, but the point PCH is making is that that was not Sauron's orcs, but rather free agents. Personally I have no problem with Mordorian orcs riding wargs.Originally posted by Mithadan
I don't know what you're on about, PCH, with the Mountain Orcs riding wolves/wargs in the Battle of the Five Armies being their own idea or Sauron's... I'm pretty sure the fact that they DID ride into that battle suggests convincingly that Tolkien did mention those Mountain Orcs mounting wolves/wargs.
- Status
