I think using them as a summon bye dain is an excellent idea!yes indeed, and making them temporary summon will even fit more with the movie, since the ram riders helped dain just for a little while ( i guess they dismount from their rams later to fight the orcs )
I think using them as a summon bye dain is an excellent idea!yes indeed, and making them temporary summon will even fit more with the movie, since the ram riders helped dain just for a little while ( i guess they dismount from their rams later to fight the orcs )
And this is your famous effect on topic... We start now with posting of something which isn't part of this topic. I am just give you suggestion, because there is no reason to point out something in name of team! And yes, please improve your conduct in future posts!!!!
I had no idea, sorry about that. Close the poll whenever you see fit.
I think that korner never intended to have this thread being closed. He is making arguments, just like you are. It's just a different kind of argument that works on a different level and should not be confused with the act of denying others their opinion.
Than is the main problem not that the dwarvens have no cavallery. The Problem is, that the Battle Wagons are to weak.
What is to weak by the Wagons?
-Is the Damage to weak?
-Is the Speed to low?
-Is the Healt to low?
-Is the cost to high?
and pike tactics rendered the warwagons useless.When I say that this isn't so, every good Multiplayer player will give me right, and all Singleplayer players will say that I'm wrong. :D
the problem is people want to play with Ram Riders
every faction needs cavalrythis may be right in a real world, but it does not automatically apply to a game.
Like I said; to counter archers and to give you an advantage over superior infantry forces, you need cavalry.And here again: They have the Battle Wagon, which is a fast and very navigable Cavallery who can kill archers and infantry.
ZitatLike I said; to counter archers and to give you an advantage over superior infantry forces, you need cavalry.And here again: They have the Battle Wagon, which is a fast and very navigable Cavallery who can kill archers and infantry.
guys don't forget that the usage of battlewagons has been reduced to nothing since people had a more developed way to ride on horses. There is always a reason why something has ceased to exist.given that dwarves were never known as people who cultivate animals in high quantity, nor have they been known as great riders, this "evolution" wouldn´t take place among them.
Yes in first place, but there is also second option which could be also good in term of refreshing game with new stuff etc. If ET never add new units instead old one, we will never have this mod. So please, we will need better argument than that.You guys just say that Battle Wagons are to weak, this is the only argument you all have said.
If there is any unit which does not fullfill his job (by being to weak, too slow, whatever), the consequence should be to rework and improve that unit, rather then introducing another unit which makes the battlewaggon obsolete.Yes in first place, but there is also second option which could be also good in term of refreshing game with new stuff etc. If ET never add new units instead old one, we will never have this mod. So please, we will need better argument than that.Zitatgiven that dwarves were never known as people who cultivate animals in high quantity, nor have they been known as great riders, this "evolution" wouldn´t take place among them.And that is also your personal opinion, which could also be wrong.
So the battlewaggon is still more fitting then riders among dwarves.
For instance, what is pulling those wagons?
not everyone wants to play with them... please keep that in mind. Not only because of balance, some people just don´t like them. If you think they are awesome this is your opinion which not everybody has to share.
However; guys don't forget that the usage of battlewagons has been reduced to nothing since people had a more developed way to ride on horses. There is always a reason why something has ceased to exist.
not hinder a new unique addition to the game.
it's not that big a deal for balance, guys (at least I think)
I am always delighted by your comments involving the lore of the World, the actual World we live in.
Extremely conceptual and explanatory, I would say ;)
2. is there any hint in the books for dwarves cultivating animals? I cannot remember. They are always describes as walking, not riding (the dwarves dislike their ponies very much, when they leave from Bilbo!). Even Dains army who had to rush to the lonely mountain came on foot, not riding (in the books). Why would they do, if they are in a hurry and have mounts?
I may be wrong on this matter, so if you find any proof about the different, tell me.
So please don't use the books as a reason for military issues;
2. is there any hint in the books for dwarves cultivating animals? I cannot remember.The rest of that quote was just added to underline this sentence.
You really think that those small buckler shields would have stopped a barage of arrows?No. Anything else?
ok elite cavalry...
are we still talking about implementing them for Iron Hills only, or for every dwarven faction?
If only Iron Hills: What would the other 2 dwarven realms get instead of the ram-riders?
There is a slight difference between adding some things that are not mentioned in a book and adding something which the books explicitly says does not exist in that world! (dwarves riding animals)
Following your argumentation one could argue that dwarves should get tanks, as Tolkien simply didn´t understand tanks being superior weapon to sword-fighting...
Interesting that you cut off now the first sentence of my quote:Zitat2. is there any hint in the books for dwarves cultivating animals? I cannot remember.The rest of that quote was just added to underline this sentence.
Dwarves do not tame animals as mounts (I didn´t even remember that it´s said in the books), otherwise they would have used them, if they are in such a hurry to get to Lonely Mountain.
ZitatYou really think that those small buckler shields would have stopped a barage of arrows?No. Anything else?
you shouldn't even try to make up the flaws of the bookI don´t see the flaw:
it's a waste of your time.8-) please let´s not talk about this... read first page of that topic and see the reactions I got...
There is a slight difference between adding some things that are not mentioned in a book and adding something which the books explicitly says does not exist in that world! (dwarves riding animals)
I don´t see the flaw:
Dwarves have to get to the mountain as quick as possible. Therefore they carry only light armour and weapon. If they´d carry ballistas and stuff like in the movie, they´d simply come too late.
And if dwarves would have mounts, they would have used them - but they simply don´t have them. Not a flaw in my opinion.
There is a slight difference between adding some things that are not mentioned in a book and adding something which the books explicitly says does not exist in that world! (dwarves riding animals)
By that argument Dáin shouldn't have his boar in the mod.
There is a slight difference between adding some things that are not mentioned in a book and adding something which the books explicitly says does not exist in that world! (dwarves riding animals)
By that argument Dáin shouldn't have his boar in the mod.
Well if you think that the Dwarves were lightly armoured then I can only say that you are very wrong. They were heavily armored even by Dwarven standards (thanks to KingDainIronfoot for this information!). Which means a big shield wouldn't make much of a difference.
So basically you're saying that the Dwarves came to the battle just to lose it? Can you please explain to me in what way they would have won the battle with the weaponry they carried? That is the flaw in the book mate.
So basically you're saying that the Dwarves came to the battle just to lose it? Can you please explain to me in what way they would have won the battle with the weaponry they carried? That is the flaw in the book mate.
So basically you're saying that the Dwarves came to the battle just to lose it? Can you please explain to me in what way they would have won the battle with the weaponry they carried? That is the flaw in the book mate.
Ok, hold on there a second, @Fredius. I wouldn't say it's a flaw in the book. Remember The Hobbit is a children's book, if you analyze it from a war historian's perpective of course it will not make sense. But it's a fairy tale it doesn't have to make sense, at least not where milititaristic specificities are concerned. And that's fine.
That doesn't mean I think that these book elements should be taken in consideration when creating a game. Remember the dwarves set out from Bag End unarmored and carrying only daggers, yet both Peter Jackson and the Team ignored that in their respective creations, and that is also fine.
And, IHMO, all this makes it also fine to ignore the fact that dwarves are stated to not use mounts, and simply give them Ram Riders, and a boar in the case of Dáin.
ZitatWell if you think that the Dwarves were lightly armoured then I can only say that you are very wrong. They were heavily armored even by Dwarven standards (thanks to KingDainIronfoot for this information!). Which means a big shield wouldn't make much of a difference.
So basically you're saying that the Dwarves came to the battle just to lose it? Can you please explain to me in what way they would have won the battle with the weaponry they carried? That is the flaw in the book mate.
???
Sorry, but now I understand nothing anymore...
First you complain, that dwarves are too light armored/ euipped to survive an elven rain of arrows.
Then you say they wear heavy armour and they don´t have need for bigger shields and armour (to survive the elven rain of arrows).
And then you say they are not properly equipped to win the battle?
So - what is your position now? Are they fit for battle or not?
And perhaps the book is meant for children, the game BFME is not ;).
And perhaps the book is meant for children, the game BFME is not ;).
Yes, I know, that's completely part of my point in my second paragraph.
I will summarize it in a couple of easy sentences that even you should understandNo need to get rude, man! Rudeness is my privileg in this forum, not yours ;).
And where exactly did I state that the Dwarves DON'T need the big shields,In your last posting:
Which means a big shield wouldn't make much of a difference.I understood you meant no difference in battle, you obviously meant no difference in carrying... such misunderstandings can happen, no need to get insulting!
They came with mattocks, and a short sword with a small buckler shield. Sorry but if the Dwarves only carried those arms against Elven archers, they would have been slaughtered within minutes.My answer was that they had to carry light armour AND weapons, to arrive in time.
No need to get rude, man! Rudeness is my privileg in this forum, not yours ;).ZitatAnd where exactly did I state that the Dwarves DON'T need the big shields,In your last posting:
ZitatWhich means a big shield wouldn't make much of a difference.I understood you meant no difference in battle, you obviously meant no difference in carrying... such misunderstandings can happen, no need to get insulting!
All this argument started when you said:ZitatThey came with mattocks, and a short sword with a small buckler shield. Sorry but if the Dwarves only carried those arms against Elven archers, they would have been slaughtered within minutes.My answer was that they had to carry light armour AND weapons, to arrive in time.
Ok so in fact they wore heavy armour. But still that´s less then carrying spears, big shields, BALLISTAS and such things.
Remember Gimli hunting the Uruks in HdR2? Running with heavy armour... but no shield.
AND:
My argument always was: IF the dwarves had mounts, they would have used them to get to the mountain, as they were in a hurry.