Some Content Suggestions for Sub-mods

**Dáin II** · January 31, 2017, 02:48 PM

Something weird does happen. I played 3-4 more turns. The armies of Adunabar (at least the ones i saw) all look the same and have 2 units of trolls. And they just spawn endlessly in certain areas so it seems. In Mordor and Ithilien there are tons of stacks too. The AI also gets more stupid. I actually managed to take Fornost with the Hobbits. Besieged with a full stack. They had one unit of cultists in there which sallied, so I took the city at 0 losses with autoresolve. The three full stacks around didn't bother to do anything. It's also possible to recruit hobbitry at arms in Fornost rightaway. I wonder how long I could hold the city. Quite a lot of archers in there...

**CountMRVHS** · January 31, 2017, 04:12 PM

That's craziness. In the normal campaigns, we don't have any script that spawns armies out of thin air (or duplicates them). To the best of my knowledge, the "normal" AI unit spam (as seen by, e.g., Harad) is simply the result of the AI's tendency to train troops as long as it has money & population to do so.

Hah, I suppose those Fornost hobbits are the descendants of those who were supposedly sent there to aid the king in years gone by...

**Dáin II** · February 02, 2017, 03:09 AM

I don't know what can technically happen to the game if the Shire is made playable. Was the only change I ever made to DoM. All I know is the amount of armies couldn't be recruited normally in that short amount of time, that's why I guessed that they just spawn. Another theory I have is that they duplicate, as they look exactly the same and a lot of the captain's names repeat. The last theory would be that they somehow have 0 turn recruitment time like in TNS for the cheap orcs. What speaks against this is that they don't have a fort with troll recruiting capability in the north at game start and all armies I checked contained those.

Going back to the idea of a hobbit submod, you actually gave the best story. I was not aware until your post that according to hobbit historians a company of hobbit archers was assisting at the battle of Fornost. Why would that not happen again in the fourth age? The RK is heavily under pressure in the north and I'm sure they would appreciate some hobbit help. In a submod, the hobbits could play the loyal ally trying to make sure the RK doesn't lose Annuminas. As victory conditions I would like holding five settlements in total including the three starting provinces, Bree, and, to make it somewhat challenging and go back to the roots, Andlang.
*Edit: Campaign strategy would heavily rely on Elves/Dwarves as barriers. E.g. Sarnford could be taken early and gifted to them for a secure southern flank. The same with Threeways. I imagine heavy use of little scouts to sneak out enemy defenses. Those guys should maybe get an extra bonus like the elves, cause they should have some advantage in preventing detection due to their size.

**CountMRVHS** · February 02, 2017, 07:38 AM

If the Hobbits had their own campaign (like the Elves & Dwarves do now), I *think* that might free up some room for a couple more units for some ambitious submodder. You might be able to make a case for some extremely limited "pony cavalry" - as Bullroarer was large enough to ride a horse, and I seem to recall somewhere that the Hobbits were getting taller over time(???). You could also perhaps include a more "elite" archer unit to represent the type of unit that the Hobbits claim to have sent to aid the King at Fornost. And some Bree-specific Mannish unit (or two) could also work: a militia type of unit w/ spears, and a forester unit (throwing spear and axe?) representing the woodmen from the surrounding villages. (Might also want to give a bit of thought to Mannish units in general; possibly just very limited trainable ones based on local mercs or AoR units; e.g. Eriador Spearmen.)

I like the idea of Andlang as a VC. I'd probably increase the required provinces to around 10 or 15, though. It wouldn't be too unreasonable for the Shire to want to hold Sarnford for itself, as a strategic 'entry point' into the Shire that has fallen to independent ruffians. And taking Bree would probably lead to Weathertop, Fornost, Lastbridge... High Pass.... down toward Swanfleet.... probably come into conflict with an aggressive Tharbad too... But yeah, the settlements you name (Bree, Andlang, homelands) would be good as requirements; I'm just imagining what the actual campaign could look like, and whether owning 15 or so settlements would seem at all 'reasonable' as the Shire.

Further justification: the Shire is traditionally extremely withdrawn/isolated, but the Fourth Age could be seen as signalling an end to that policy. The high-profile figures of Merry & Pippin making regular visits to Rohan & Gondor; the integration of the Shire into (an independent region of) the RK; general increase in awareness of the outside world - all of these things could reasonably lead the Shire to become involved in politics beyond its borders. Then there is the theme of 'dwindling', which appears not to apply to the Hobbits (who could be counted among Men, in a way). All this means an expansionist (player-controlled) Shire *could* be justified

(regarding Adunabar's spawning of armies, my guess would be there's duplication going on, for the reasons you state - but I know next to nothing about this)

**Tulkasthevaliant** · February 02, 2017, 11:04 AM

Hobbits are Men, as they (I believe) share in the Gift of Illuvatar. And Hobbits should have really powerful scouts and (probably) assassins, since they know how to hide so well due to living in the world of the Big Folk. To be honest, I could see the Hobbits' strength being in agents and family members, to represent the spark of courage that lies, however deep, within all hobbits, as Gandalf once pointed out. Their power is in the hardiness of the individual, not in any great host. Although they should have crap diplomats, as I can hardly imagine the Thain being a master of realpolitik. But you can't affect diplomat power levels much, so ho hum.

**Wambat** · February 02, 2017, 11:19 PM

@Dáin II

As I recall, there is no record that the King of Arnor made any formal request of the Hobbits for aid. The only record of the sending of Hobbit troops is from The Shire's own records; the Reunited Kingdom possesses no records of Hobbits participating in the final defense of Arnor, and those sent never came back. This leaves room for speculation:

a. The Hobbits sent these troops on their own initiative, seeing their sovereign in need.

b. The records (outside the Shire) relating to these events were lost in the destruction of Arnor.

c. The Hobbits made the whole thing up.

d. J.R.R. Tolkien made the whole thing up (my money is on this one).

As for what happened to the Hobbits sent, they may have died on the way to Fornost; which would help explain why the King made no account of them; they may have died in the defense of Fornost, or on their way back.

@ CountMRVHS & Tulkasthevaliant

As for Hobbits being "men", you have Meriadoc Brandybuck's authority on that subject: proclaiming that he was not a Man, but a Hobbit, before striking the Witch King.

It is claimed, to some extent, that there is a kinship between Men and Hobbits unlike, and closer than, that between Men and Dwarves or Elves. I think the concept of kinship here must logically be meant figuratively. Beings in Middle Earth were created, as separate "species", rather than evolved, and, aside from the Dwarves, all intelligent life created by the same entity; so kinship could not then refer to a shared creator, or Men and Elves would have an equivalent kinship.

Even if taken literally, the kinship would have to refer to a common ancestor, rather than an evolution of one to the other. But we are talking about Middle Earth here, it's age is only in the thousands, and, if my memory does not fail me, Man has existed for only a minority of that total span. It's just not enough time for such an evolution to have occurred.

I think it is safer to assume that "kinship" merely refers to a common interest between Man and Hobbits in what they value, and their perspective toward the world.

As far as "sharing in the Gift of Iluvatar", I don't remember reading that this was so. My memory is less clear on this point, but I seem to remember that the gift was not death/mortality; after all, rabbits and fish (and Dwarves) are mortal, but there is no talk of them having received a special gift from Iluvatar. The gift, as I understand it, relates to the destiny of Mannish souls, so to speak, which, alone among all beings, leave the confines of the world upon their death. This was the gift that would have been denied to Men had they been granted immortality at the end of the first age. I have not seen any documentation to show that Hobbits share in that gift; though I am not the greatest authority on all things Tolkien.

As for recruitment and expansion, I think they would be handled more like the Dwaves, but with a population conversion option to Hobbit, or at least mixed (as in Bree). I will bullet point for ease of reference:

- The pure Hobbit lands (Homeland provinces?), which might be restricted to The Shire, but, perhaps Bree as well. They should have the highest population and land tax potential.

- Everything else Outlands, but greener provinces that might appeal to Hobbits might have the option of conversion to a mixed population, as in Bree. A mixed population would have a lower population potential than either a Mannish or Hobbit settlement, but benefit from the higher land tax of Hobbit lands.

- Settlements neither Hobbit nor mixed would be Mannish, but could be labeled "protected" or "confederated", or something to show that they are not under the thumb of The Shire, but rather benefiting from benevolent protection. These lands would have population potential between Hobbit and mixed, but lower land tax than either. These would be the only settlements where Mannish troops could be hired.

As to starting conditions, I would have RK on the back foot in the north, holding only Annúminas, and perhaps, Fornost. If not Fornost, then give RK a camp at the river crossing west of Fornost. Adunabar wold be holding Bree (and Fornost if RK does not have it) and would be sending a force of Orcs through The Shire trying to circumvent the the camp (or Fornost) to assault Annúminas from the south.

The success of Adunabar in the north would account for The Shire having begun mobilization, so that they are prepared (just) to intercept the Orcs with a reasonable chance of success on the first turn. If successful, it would then be a race to rescue Annúminas, or, if too late, to avenge the King. I would give them VC of holding all of Eriador proper aside from Annúminas, in case they rescue RK there. It should be ensured RK is weak enough in the north that they probably will not be able to expand from Annúminas before a Hobbit player can take the surrounding settlements. RK can be on a more secure footing in the south to ensure RK does not get stuck with only Annúminas until very late in the game, so RK is not forced to make war on The Shire.

**Dáin II** · February 03, 2017, 08:48 AM

Some really interesting points all in all...

Regarding the historical accuracy of hobbit archers at the battle of Fornost, I'd say it doesn't really matter. This part of proud hobbit history, in combination with the heroic deeds of Merry and Pippin in the third age and the rise of Adunabar in the fourth age could have the potential to lead hobbits to a higher level of military development including some elite archers and pony cavalry. I could imagine that young hobbits, especially the more adventurous Fallohides would see Merry and Pippin as role models and aspire to get skills in the same direction.

A few further thoughts on the hobbit roster: Hobbit ponies are a great idea! That's really a must have. Besides that, I don't think there would need to be too many changes, only a few to the current roster. As I don't have any modding skills myself and I don't know if someone skilled will ever take interest in this idea I'd rather tend to propose few changes.
There are two infantry and two archer units already. They vary in size and quality, but look the same. The hobbitry-at-arms could get a pitchfork instead of a cudgel, to differentiate them a bit from the bounders. While this weapon may or may not be historically accurate for hobbits, it would be fitting for farmers who have to take up weapons in times of need. Maybe giving the bounders AP would be an idea too, reflecting some ability to hit vulnerable spots in enemy armour due to their size. I think they need that to make it worthwile recruiting them. Otherwise army composition would most likely not see many melee hobbits.
The current bodyguard is already an elite archer, but it looks the same as the regular version. There could be a normally recruitable non-bodyguard version of this unit with maybe a leather armour added to the design to make it look heavier than the regular archer. Unit sizes could slightly be increased here as well, e.g. 70 standard archers and 50 elite/BG archers. I think with a cavalry unit, two different archers and infantry each, and optionally a slinger unit the hobbits would be diverse enough.
Optionally, there could be slingers. I don't know if hobbits ever used those, but that's one of those weapons they physically should be able to use as well. In addition, there could be some special units included which are only recruitable in certain areas. Stoor Axemen (or some other weapon) with swimming ability would be an option.

For mannish units, I don't think there would need to be a new unit not available to any other faction at the moment. I would say the standard regional levies are sufficient, but to get a few better units there could be Eriador Axemen and Woodmen Bows available in certain areas. An elite assimilation unit I would like too. My favorite would be Rangers of the North. If the Shire is considered a homeland with availability of the full hobbit roster, mannish towns with some hobbit history could be classified as fiefdoms, making both low tier men and hobbits available. Bree, Swanfleet, and Andlang would be possibilities. Certain areas could get higher tier mannish units, e.g. Rangers in Annuminas, Eriador Axemen in Lastbridge, and Woodmen Bows in Oldford or something like that. Basically, I'd leave conversion out and treat hobbits as men in terms of gameplay and make them recruitable in places they have liked to live at before. Possibly, fiefdoms would not be the most fitting term for hobbits, so these areas could get a different name.

I would definitely also support higher quality rogues. I'm sure Smeagol wouldn't be the only hobbit capable of killing in secret. Diplomats could just be of normal quality I'd say. I'd neither see hobbits as especially skilled nor especially unfriendly in terms of diplomacy, just average would do the job.

In terms of buildings, the Shire should in my opinion continue to have the fewest options. I think they shouldn't get anything beyond tier 2. Michel Delving has tier 1 trader, walls, pub, and library, while having tier 2 farms, reflecting the current maximum development level of the hobbits. It should be reasonable that they could build these buildings outside their homelands as well. Giving them tier 2 markets and walls could also be considered. While they don't like change in general, increased income or the need for better protected settlements could motivate them to develop further in that direction. Military buildings they could get tier 2 in normal cities and maybe tier 3 in major cities, to give them their special units.

I really hope someone skilled takes interest in this. The hobbits would definitely be a new candidate for the most difficult campaign.

**CountMRVHS** · February 03, 2017, 10:10 AM

Ooh, maybe a kind of war-dog unit as well! Farmer Maggot was smart enough to keep 3 tough hounds at his place. Of course the hounds would practically dwarf their 'handlers'. It's perhaps a little over the top, but the entire concept of a Shire campaign is OtT to begin with