I agree with most of what mrtn says. The Religious trait actually would have much more of a benefit for Isengard than Industrial. Lets think about it:
Industrial will give you better workers. That is all the trait does. For such a small civ that is useless. Religious gives you cheaper culture buildings, this doesnt really fit Isengard. Why should Saruman be able to build cheaper temples?
Religious is useful, but unfitting.
Industrial is useless, but fitting.
I still dont care one way or another. Tolkien said in a letter he wanted to keep modern religion out of his works. Should we rename the Religious trait as mrtn says? Or would that make the Valar too diminutive?
Mrtn:
The invisibility of scouts\workers looks like the way to go, a nice bonus. Its sort of like Mordors ability to sacrifice units, just a small but very useful bonus that will help out. We leave it for all ages.
I suggest making settlers invisible for either the first two eras or the last two.
The Last Conformist : I believe Mrtn was pointing out this in my little stash of quotes:
The Return of the King
"[...] had flung them into the fray; Easterlings with axes, and Variags of Khand. Southrons in scarlet, and out of Far Harad black men like half-trolls with white eyes and red tongues."
Cant tell if you noticed that or were replying to Mithadan and Foehammers discussion on swarthy-men
. From the quote I just gave, it seems that Harad was regarded as both the Easterlings and Southrons. Why would they call it Far Harad in capitals, as if it were a proper name? Why the reference to the troll men evertime he mentions this race? Certainly complicated.
I also remember something in the Silmarillion mentioning how theyre skin was Burnt from the intense sun.
the mormegil-
Does it matter that they would be 'bad ass attackers'? When hobbits get mad...
Just set their aggression to 1 and that shouldn't really be a problem.
When hobbits get mad.... they can kill some second string goblins. Sam had the king of magic rings, Númenor-styled blade, and a courage generating vial. Even with all that he couldnt take out a wounded Orc to free Frodo.
Of course it is a problem
! Why should they be a better war machine than Mordor? The Hobbits were nothing special militarily, period. I already explained in detail about the balance of a booming civilizations having invisible units. Do you guys realize I could send in 4 hobbits to Mordor, and capture all their workers and disband them? It would be impossible to kill a hobbit if he didnt die attacking you.
Not really seeing any arguments against it, just opinions. So Ill just suffice to say I disagree, invisible military units would be unbalancing, incorrect, and over-serve their purpose (in realism and gameplay).
The Elves have good weapons.
Do the Hobbits have blades that are more powerful than the Mens? Not at all.
Or armor better than the Dwarves? Nope, not that either.
Men are stronger in body than Orcs.
Do the Hobbits have strength in stature, such as the Men? No, the are quite diminutive in that aspect.
Elves are renowned as bowmen.
Are the Hobbits able to shoot a fell beast (for example) with their excellent eyesight? Never.
You get the point here. As much as I like Hobbits, they are nothing special in any of those things. They are relatively harder to see, but Tolkien says himself they could not do that as accurately as the Elves, and that is probably their best physical talent. If you wanted to give Hobbit combat units the invisible flag, you would have to lower their stats drastically. Besides this, we have no proof they bothered with that type of warfare. They used it to escape, not to jump out and ambush.
In the one battle of an army of Hobbits against an army of Orcs, it was an outright battle, not some guerrilla warfare.
...?
![[Ant]Wimp](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/35/35417.jpg?1475248323){kind=avatar}
that I didn't post this before we decided the civ traits for the civs, but anyway...
