Dales archers?

[brasswire]

I'm actually intrigued to hear you say this. My experience has always been that the Bardian marksmen are, well, awful. They're competent archers, but can't compare to the Silvans just next door, and their melee skills always prove totally underwhelming. Where the bodyguards of nearly all other factions (except orcs) can essentially be relied on to independently annihilate several enemy units, properly applied, Dale's just typically flounder.

I see what you're saying but IMHO this isn't a problem with Dale as much as certain other factions (ie all the ones that get heavy cavalry as general's bodyguards) have over-powered general units. Playing with heavy cavalry bodyguards makes the game easy mode. On the other hand the Bardian Marksmen are simply very good, not up to the ridiculous levels of others.

Also, I think Dale's starting infantry (Hearth Watchmen) are the weakest non-Snaga unit in the whole game. They are exceedingly bad and die by the hundreds in any decent sized battle. That's fine though as long as you expect it and plan accordingly (always make sure to have extra of them around as fodder and replace losses quickly). Dale has some nice higher tier spearmen and swordmen that make up for their awful starting infantry unit.

[MacCarthy]

I have to agree the Rangers need to be placed one tier lower so one can have more use from them since they are an AoR unit. Like to see the roster drop woodsmen and maybe have a heavier javelin unit not tied to AoR. Overall by the time you move into the Mordor area you may only be using 4 main units since much of the "cool" units are tied to area of recruitment. I may have used Earl units once and just made them pretty city defenders, totally useless to the overall game if you have to take 15 turns to move a piece to the front , fight one battle, and need to move 15 turns back to retrain.

[Keyser_Soze]

Given that some of dale's people are made up of remnants of the kingdom of Rhovanion, i'd propose expanding the AOR of some units further across rhovanion, southwards as far as rhunaer (that is the tiny rhun village at the foothills of mordor?) and as westwards as thoronburg. Of course, beyond uldonavan and thoronburg, none of these settlements are able to grow enough to produce anything decent.

[Macilrille]

But Keyser... that was 1100 years ago the remnants of the Kingdom of Rhovanion were wiped out. I suspect the various Easterling invasions + Mordor has done a bit of ethnic cleansing since then.

[Keyser_Soze]

But Keyser... that was 1100 years ago the remnants of the Kingdom of Rhovanion were wiped out. I suspect the various Easterling invasions + Mordor has done a bit of ethnic cleansing since then.

Yes, though the way it currently is makes good units like the barding hird, earls, dismounted earls and swordmasters essentially useless. Late game, you pretty much rely on uldonavan and thoronburg for your armies. This means that your armies become primarily composed of longbowmen to do the damage, and watchmen to protect the bowmen. This gets pretty dull. I once got so far as to have taken the black gate and by then, it was a very dull campaign. I eventyally got pushed out of the black gate due to the logistics of moving an army ahead but by then I was very bored. A faction needs variety and by the end of a dale campaign, you suffer from not being able to easily provide variety to your armies. At least not in a regular fashion.
I love dale, but they become dull in late game due to their unusually high numbers of aor units. They have something like 8 or 9 units that are AOR. maybe not wilderland, but areas to the south down to uldonavan would make some sense. In the end, we know very little or even nothing about dale pre-2700 TA or something like that. I think its history is closely linked to that of rhovanion's though.

[ShockBlast]

As people said Bardian Marksmen are a general unit not a normal unit like the Rangers,in my campaign the Marksmen are a normal unit when recruited so maybe the people comparing them have the same problem and that is way they compare the two.

Lorewise how are better archers,the Men of Dale or Gondorians?

[mondpeiler]

... Lorewise how are better archers,the Men of Dale or Gondorians?

the advantage of dalean archers results just of bard the bowmen in the hobbit, somaybe they must'nt really be all good archers, but that's kind of only source on dales fightingstyle, so why not give them an advantage over gondor.
gondor is more represented like the roman empire: relying on infantry.

[ShockBlast]

the advantage of dalean archers results just of bard the bowmen in the hobbit, somaybe they must'nt really be all good archers, but that's kind of only source on dales fightingstyle, so why not give them an advantage over gondor.
gondor is more represented like the roman empire: relying on infantry.

Errr I know about Bard the Bowman who killed the dragon but that doesn`t mean they have to be represented as superior to Gondor and even if Gondor is known for it`s heavy infantry their archers should be just as good.
Gondor has a weak spot when it comes to cavalry so no need to make them be underperforming in the archers department.

Rhun can mass field better heavy infantry , cavalry and archers then Gondor.Swan Knights , mounted and dismounted , are tied to one location , Fountain Guards are in the same situation and the Gondorian Rangers are in a better situation but still Rhun in late games beats Gondor in every department in both quality and quantity.

[Mikail Mengsk]

Rhùn's late-game power is heavily debated, since lore-wise we have absolutely no sources about it.

[brasswire]

Errr I know about Bard the Bowman who killed the dragon but that doesn`t mean they have to be represented as superior to Gondor and even if Gondor is known for it`s heavy infantry their archers should be just as good.
Gondor has a weak spot when it comes to cavalry so no need to make them be underperforming in the archers department.

When did this become about Gondor? Gondor does not "underperform" when it comes to archers. Dale happens to have the best archers in the game outside of Elves. That is the one really good thing they get. Gondor has lots of other good things, they can afford to have slightly less good archers compared to Dale. Dale cavalry and infantry are much worse than Gondor, having good archers is part of what makes them unique and fun to play.

Rhun can mass field better heavy infantry , cavalry and archers then Gondor.Swan Knights , mounted and dismounted , are tied to one location , Fountain Guards are in the same situation and the Gondorian Rangers are in a better situation but still Rhun in late games beats Gondor in every department in both quality and quantity.

I don't think you can just pluck two factions and start comparing them like this as each faction is setup to be fun and challenging for the situation it is in. Rhun and Gondor are created and tweaked to be good and fun in different ways.

That being said, I also think you're just wrong. Gondor's generic tier 3 units are close to as good or better than Rhun's best available units in every category. And then Gondor can still go over the top with their superior AoR units.

As for Rhun being able to field more units, that's a separate issue. I think there may possibly be some imbalance with Rhun and Harad in the game currently because they are able to spam units like nobody's business.

[Gen. Chris]

vs.

Havent played Dale yet, but I am plannung to do it.

When I look at their unit tree, http://totalwar.honga.net/faction_bu...=tatw3&f2=dale I am a little bit confused. At tier 3 (Archery Range/missle 2) you get Athala Rangers and Bardian Marksmen. But Bardian Marksmen are in ever cause better than the Athala Rangers.
Is there anything I miss about the Athala Rangers?
Or are they just useless comparred to the Marksmen?

Bardians are also used for bodyguards.

I see the rangers as flavor.

[Keyser_Soze]

Errr I know about Bard the Bowman who killed the dragon but that doesn`t mean they have to be represented as superior to Gondor and even if Gondor is known for it`s heavy infantry their archers should be just as good.
Gondor has a weak spot when it comes to cavalry so no need to make them be underperforming in the archers department.

Rhun can mass field better heavy infantry , cavalry and archers then Gondor.Swan Knights , mounted and dismounted , are tied to one location , Fountain Guards are in the same situation and the Gondorian Rangers are in a better situation but still Rhun in late games beats Gondor in every department in both quality and quantity.

Dale needs an advantage of some sort. As we know little of them (the hobbit films will inevitably become a source), the fact that bard was a bowman is something to go by. Dale isn't just a faction because it existed, it's a faction because a good faction is needed in the east. And factions tend to be themed. Thisis dale's theme.

[Bloodly]

One could say that Dale's theme is that it is very much 'The Alliance'. Dwarves, Elves and Men. The area's been a trade hub since forever thanks to the River and close proximity to the hearts of Dwarf/Elf power. Hell, the major point was Dwarves and Men held off Rhun together. If you can't count on the AI to do so(And of course you can't), maybe something could be added to make it more true.

[bazziman]

Great Idea: OAR or merc Dwarf infantry! Just like the Dwarfs can hire human cavalry. I agree with expanding the AOR a little: maybe just enough to (slowly) replenish existing troops instead of actually being able to recruit new units. This would make the game more playable / enjoyable. In fact I feel that when it comes to humans of *any* race you should be able to replenish existing troops on most of the (human populated) areas of the maps. Also human mercs should be recruitable for elves and dwarves (the dwarves already have the cav. perhaps the elves should have similar auxiliary human units)

[brasswire]

Great Idea: OAR or merc Dwarf infantry! Just like the Dwarfs can hire human cavalry.

I really like that idea. I would definitely support making basic Dwarf Warriors a recruitable merc unit for Dale, let's say at Erebor and the Iron Hills. It would mirror the Dwarves ability to recruit Dale Cavalry, would add a nice bit of flair to their roster, and it fits thematically with their close alliance.

[MacCarthy]

Dale's best troops (Earls) come from it's starting towns near Erebor which makes use of them rather limited in the game. Adding a merc unit to recruit so far from the front lines adds another heap of micromanagement. Outside of making them available in any mountain region.

[Glaygon of Holland]

To keep the topic on track: I think one of the best advantages of the Athala Rangers is their ability to deploy stakes. A wise course of action in a defensive battle against any Rhûnic army in the mid to late game. Another thing to consider is the fact that the Bardian Marskman are a General Bodyguard unit, which - most of the time - means a high upkeep cost.

[Gen. Chris]

To keep the topic on track: I think one of the best advantages of the Athala Rangers is their ability to deploy stakes. A wise course of action in a defensive battle against any Rhûnic army in the mid to late game. Another thing to consider is the fact that the Bardian Marskman are a General Bodyguard unit, which - most of the time - means a high upkeep cost.

But it also means they respawn. So I guess it sorts of balances itself out.

[Mhaedros]

People know that there are two Bardian Archer units, right? It's the bodyguard unit, and the 150-men unit which is a tier 3 unit

[Keyser_Soze]

To keep the topic on track: I think one of the best advantages of the Athala Rangers is their ability to deploy stakes. A wise course of action in a defensive battle against any Rhûnic army in the mid to late game. Another thing to consider is the fact that the Bardian Marskman are a General Bodyguard unit, which - most of the time - means a high upkeep cost.

By late game, rhun should be destroyed, and stakes are of little use against mordor, with the exception of nazgul, which are uncommon