[en] Edain Mod > [Edain] Rohan Suggestions

Brief Rohan Suggestions

<< < (6/11) > >>

Walküre:
In the plainest logical sense, you are substantially right. One would deem natural that Rohan's heroes should be mounted freely as they were in the very first BFME1. The same about your reasoning regarding the War of the Ring.

Nevertheless, as I wrote, there's not so much more to be told other than it was mainly a decision concerning balance and gameplay. I would rather look at things in this perspective: Rohan is the cavalry-based faction by definition (the stables are its warfare's core) and it has the advantage of having many mounted heroes at hand, but this has to come at a price of a consequent restriction.

Julio229:

--- Zitat von: DieWalküre am 15. Aug 2016, 02:50 ---In the plainest logical sense, you are substantially right. One would deem natural that Rohan's heroes should be mounted freely as they were in the very first BFME1. The same about your reasoning regarding the War of the Ring.

Nevertheless, as I wrote, there's not so much more to be told other than it was mainly a decision concerning balance and gameplay. I would rather look at things in this perspective: Rohan is the cavalry-based faction by definition (the stables are its warfare's core) and it has the advantage of having many mounted heroes at hand, but this has to come at a price of a consequent restriction.

--- Ende Zitat ---

I thought that. Lore-wise, Rohan heroes should have the ability to mount freely, but then, if lore was always followed and no balance/changes were made, Rohan would have a huge advantage that would be unfair, because having almost all of their heroes with mounted abilities gives them a mobility advantage that no other faction has, and having it with no restrictions wouldn't be balanced. So if it's better for the game, I prefer it to stay the way it is now.

Elite KryPtik:
Weighing in on this, the stable requirement for mounting at this point is, in my opinion, a leftover of 3.8.1 and an unnecessary gimmick.

It has never directly hurt my gameplay in any ways I can think of, but just on the pure fact of how many other factions get heroes who can mount, having only Rohan locked off by the stables actually makes about as little sense as it can make.

As you said Die, Rohan is a cavalry faction, they are the Horse Lords, and so why shouldn't their heroes have their mounts available freely? Lets do a quick comparison:
Rohan: 6 heroes who can mount and their hobbit, 7 total heroes.
Gondor: 4 heroes who can mount, 8 heroes total.
Mordor: 7 heroes who can mount counting black rider battalion, 9 heroes total.
Imladris: 3 heroes that can mount, 7 heroes total.

So with the available factions who have more than a single mounted hero, we see the majority have at least half of their available heroes as mountable heroes, with no restrictions at all except in Gondors case concerning levelling up the heroes. If you want to mount up Gandalf having never built a stables, you can go right ahead. Now obviously Mordor doesn't have a stables, but the point still stands for them as well. Finally, for Imladris, half of their heroes can mount and provide support to their already excellent cavalry, or just mount to escape from battle, no restrictions.

I can see no reason to retain this unnecessary restriction. All it really does is hurt gameplay, for example if you are doing an infantry strategy as Rohan(which is necessary much more often than you may think) and never make a stables, focusing instead on an Archery Range, you have literally no ability to mount your hero, whether it be to get them to the frontline or escape when close to death. It is, at the end of the day, a hindrance more than a feature.

Slawek56703:
Rohan Herald summoned by Theoden on foot had 1180 and summoned on horse had 1015 can the have this some amount of health it's little illogical than mounted herald is weaker
3: Haldir summoned dont have mentioned on his decription that he gets armor boost when change his weapon from bow to sword

Ealendril der Dunkle:
To have more health doesn't mean, that a unit/hero is stronger. There are other facts, which have his own meaning: armor, damage etc. So the mounted Herald isn't weaker then the foot one. ;)

Navigation

[0] Themen-Index

[#] Nächste Seite

[*] Vorherige Sete