[UPD 16 MAR 17] Preview: Isengard

[jim501]

Indeed. We plan to give each unit a unique stress. So Isengard very limited cav, rohan very limited infantry, etc. To me it seems like throwing away an oppurtontiy for such unique variations should we add cavalry to isengard and many footsoldiers to rohan, etc.

When you say "very limited" what exactly do you have in mind ?
Are units like militia, standard soldiers and royal guard considered or are the elite units cavalry only ?

[Key-low]

Indeed. We plan to give each unit a unique stress. So Isengard very limited cav, rohan very limited infantry, etc. To me it seems like throwing away an oppurtontiy for such unique variations should we add cavalry to isengard and many footsoldiers to rohan, etc.

I completely agree. I have always thought Total War games (particularly Rome and Attila) did a poor job with faction variation. Play styles for each Faction were never that different, especially when if came to infantry based factions. A big part of this I thought had to do with faction rosters resembling one another to closely.. You know, every single faction had its own heavy cav general.. It was just dumb. Every faction should not have their own version of heavy melee infantry, heavy cav, elite spear infantry, etc. It makes the game harder to play when you have to deal with realistic and logical holes in your roster and ultimately makes the game more interesting. That's why I'm pleased with the way the rosters seem to be shaping up and I hope the imbalances between the faction rosters remain. Who wants to fight the same armies over and over again with just a uniform change?!

Plus it'll just take longer and I've waited enough already haha..

[Maestro1]

When you say "very limited" what exactly do you have in mind ?
Are units like militia, standard soldiers and royal guard considered or are the elite units cavalry only ?

We are with more people on the team than just me of course, and we all have our different opinions. For me goes that I really prefer faction rosters that are unique and varied. But that is only possible if we add limitations. In my opinion, we could give Rohan very limited infantry, so maybe only 4/5 units, and the rest be cavalry. But there are arguements in favour and against. We have not decided on our rosters fully until the first beta release comes out. Though the previews you will get do give a good indication of that direction. You must remember though that with many different opinions, we have to do concessions. Personally, I was highly against adding those sword units in Imladris for the same reason as I did not any more wargs to Isengard. Give them that limitation, let them struggle with that, it makes for good gameplay. The lore mostly supports this as well. But my colleague had a slightly different opinion maybe so he changed the Imladris roster a bit. We do our concessions. The team is devided a bit and the community is devided a hell of a lot. It makes our jobs really difficult. We just devide tasks, always ask each other for feedback and are open to suggestions. Such is the best I believe. The 'final' (for how much you can name it as such) decision on the roster is of course up to the one assigned to it, so Isengard for me. But with this attitude, the other persons not assigned to the roster can trust that the rosterer has taken suggestions into account and has done his effort to support his own reasons for his choices. The other opinions usually befit those that community members might have! So for Isengard: I cut the stones, other rosterers, artists and people polish the beams and I let them. If I want to stop them polishisng and say, okay, community wants this, or lore says this, or balance/gameplay says that, and that's why I do your suggestions A and B and leave C for what it is. Never will the suggester feel passed on this way.

So in conclusion, the variation of opinions, backgrounds and knowledge represent the community as they were elected representatives. It's great isn't it? It works really well. And if matters don't work, we give final word to the one and only master who decides at all times and who will not be contradicted very often: mister Tolkien himself and his lore. It feels perfect for me

I completely agree. I have always thought Total War games (particularly Rome and Attila) did a poor job with faction variation. Play styles for each Faction were never that different, especially when if came to infantry based factions. A big part of this I thought had to do with faction rosters resembling one another to closely.. You know, every single faction had its own heavy cav general.. It was just dumb. Every faction should not have their own version of heavy melee infantry, heavy cav, elite spear infantry, etc. It makes the game harder to play when you have to deal with realistic and logical holes in your roster and ultimately makes the game more interesting. That's why I'm pleased with the way the rosters seem to be shaping up and I hope the imbalances between the faction rosters remain. Who wants to fight the same armies over and over again with just a uniform change?!

Plus it'll just take longer and I've waited enough already haha..

I represent your thoughts on this in the team concerning Isengard.

[Northern-Ranger]

I agree isengard shouldnt have more wargs or cav in general but also most orc factions shouldn't either.however i think rohan should have more infantry but not as many as other infantry focused factions and their cav is faster and stornger then other factions for their teir. For example their militia cav is better then mid cav for gondor and Arnor.

[Moon_Man]

I'm just curious what you wanted to see instead. It looks like cartoon because it's supposed to look like cartoon. And man, did you read any books or all you want in the mod is tons of epic badass looking stuff with total nonsense? Trolls were never a unit of Isengard.

I second this

and I second this again

[wolfBTM]

I would very much like to see more specialized factions to some degree. I think a good compromise would be if every faction had the ability to do basic strategies, but each excelled in one area. An example of this would be like Parthia from Rome 2. While Parthia was certainly capable of bringing infantry to the fight and perhaps surprising its opponent by doing so, it was mainly a cavalry and archer faction. This allows for a greater complexity to be added to the game. A diversification of play-styles between each faction (while allowing each faction to have basic units in several roles) would make the game more interesting and would probably be more lore accurate.

I can understand where others may come from with concerns about balance. Some factions may easily counter other factions, but, from a strategy standpoint, this just makes surprise strategies (like bringing infantry with Parthia to attempt to counter an anti cavalry opponent) more viable. Allowing for each faction to have vastly different styles also allows people to become specialized in the factions or styles that they like, or allow them to try different styles.
This is just my opinion, but I would like to see a compromise, leaning toward specialized, unique factions that have basic abilities in other areas.

[LinusLinothorax]

Wargs are not meant for extended melee on their own. As you can see in all the films they get cut down pretty easily if they stay for too long.

Wargs and their riders get cut down easily in the movies because they are the evil guys. A real life wolf of that size would easily slaugther dozens of horses.

[Northern-Ranger]

I agree in real life a wolf that size would be difficult but when surrounded it'll be easy. Also in the films they're mostly used for scouting and hunting down, then they run off they are not usually in extended melee and when they are they get surrounded and cut down.

[LinusLinothorax]

I agree in real life a wolf that size would be difficult but when surrounded it'll be easy.

If a surrounded warg is easy what is a surrounded horse?

[Northern-Ranger]

LinusLinothorax;14899486]If a surrounded warg is easy what is a surrounded horse?[/QUOTE]
A surrounded horse is just as easy. Which can be seen in almost every film (good or bad guys) and also in some video games

[Alkar]

Wargs and their riders get cut down easily in the movies because they are the evil guys. A real life wolf of that size would easily slaugther dozens of horses.

Yep, they would slaughter dozens of horses, but not if the horsemen were in sufficient numbers, good formation, and coordinating defense. They excelled at scouting and taking down small groups, or large groups spread out. If horses did not have riders, of course they would all be slaughtered easily.

For example: "5 They were very swift and skilled in avoiding ordered men in close array, being used mostly to destroy isolated groups or to hunt down fugitives; but at need they would pass with reckless ferocity through any gaps in companies of horsemen, slashing at the bellies of the horses. [Author's note.]"

[mw51630]

I'm liking these limited rosters. Never thought I would, but I started playing a mod for atilla that replaces all the factions to Rome ii ones. As the seleucids I have little cavalry or ranged, but some of the best spear and pike infantry in the game. I have to play completely different than I ever have before, trying to gaud the enemy into attacking my lines. Really fun.

[Alkar]

It would also be great to enable an option to let faction tactics and units evolve, where there is a revolution of tactics and unit strategy. For example, selecting technology trees to focus on a more spread-out roster. Seems like a bunch of work though. It would enable the player to take things into his own hands and role-play beyond the restrictions of lore, which could be good, I don't know.

[Rukdug]

Very nice. Loving the faction roster. Just a suggestion, and this may be over powered and completely stupid because I don't know how the game is focused, but maybe the bombs could be employed by having a bomb-thrower unit, like how Sassanids and other factions in the past have had naft-thrower units? Still, this looks amazing. Isengard was always my favorite faction.

[Commissar Caligula_]

It would also be great to enable an option to let faction tactics and units evolve, where there is a revolution of tactics and unit strategy. For example, selecting technology trees to focus on a more spread-out roster. Seems like a bunch of work though. It would enable the player to take things into his own hands and role-play beyond the restrictions of lore, which could be good, I don't know.

Eg have a lore friendly tech tree and a "have access to everything" tech tree where you can recruit trolls/mumakil/orcs/whatever you want cheat mode tech tree for those who wanna boogie like that? I've never worked with editting the tech tree, but its probably possible.

The answer for those who want to do something the mod team isn't doing is probably just "Make a submod" though.

[Tinteex]

This is going to be so damn good!
Keep going guys, its going to be to great to comprehend!

[Moon_Man]

Will we be seeing The White Wizard himself as a faction leader? Or will Sauron be only mentioned through missions and an Orcish lieutenant be the faction leader?

[Don Juan_de_Austria]

I think you mean Saruman the White, ´cause Dark Lord Sauron resides in Mordor.^^

[Northern-Ranger]

Will we be seeing The White Wizard himself as a faction leader? Or will Sauron be only mentioned through missions and an Orcish lieutenant be the faction leader?

why would saruman not be the faction leader? He doesn't need to be a general, after all attila has the governor system.

[Arifian]

Do you guys have little preview of a warg unit ?