Army of Death - Vote Now

[Inarus]

Tactics with guns are non existent? Are you crazy!? What kind of fantasy land do you live in? Any way, on topic, The Army of the dead didn't actually fight in the books. they just scared the Corsairs and let the Sothern Gondorian forces actually win the battle.

Sorry, they are practically non-existant by comparison to with a sword or spear.

Note the comparison. Yes there are tactics but you cannot recreate the Battle of Thermopylae with both sides having machine guns.

[Vaz]

Why?

I see no way of making them true to lore or even remotely true to lore. Or making them something special gameplay wise, because the engine lacks the possibilities to do so.

Then Why are we using units with plate armour? They aren't true to lore.

Tolkien has declared he prefers the scale and mail armour of early dark ages. So Rhunic, Gondorian, and Elven units with plate armour shouldn't be present.

[Evan MF]

Then Why are we using units with plate armour? They aren't true to lore.

Tolkien has declared he prefers the scale and mail armour of early dark ages. So Rhunic, Gondorian, and Elven units with plate armour shouldn't be present.

Plate armour isn't the same as machine guns and invincible army of dead

[Nikos]

Sorry, they are practically non-existant by comparison to with a sword or spear.

You my friend have a very limited idea of what modern warfare entails.

Note the comparison. Yes there are tactics but you cannot recreate the Battle of Thermopylae with both sides having machine guns.

Why would you want to, just because a battle has firearms doesn't make it any less "glorious" or "noble"

[Evan MF]

You my friend have a very limited idea of what modern warfare entails.

Why would you want to, just because a battle has firearms doesn't make it any less "glorious" or "noble"

Well look at it this way. As humanity is advancing through the ages war is becoming more like systematic killing. Now it is just a click of a button for a nuke-launch, a pull of a trigger for a spray of bullets... Whilst the further you go back, the more human to human it was, which seems more glorios and brave.

[Nikos]

Well look at it this way. As humanity is advancing through the ages war is becoming more like systematic killing. Now it is just a click of a button for a nuke-launch, a pull of a trigger for a spray of bullets... Whilst the further you go back, the more human to human it was, which seems more glorios and brave.

The problem I have is this, war was never "glorious" or "honorable". Thanks to Hollywood and the media, we have this idea of Ancient and Medieval warfare being this romanticized "honorable" and "glorious" fighting. The reality was far different, it was just as brutal and inglorious as it is today. And it still takes as much bravery as it did back then to go into war now.

[Inarus]

Well look at it this way. As humanity is advancing through the ages war is becoming more like systematic killing. Now it is just a click of a button for a nuke-launch, a pull of a trigger for a spray of bullets... Whilst the further you go back, the more human to human it was, which seems more glorios and brave.

Thank you.

A coward can kill with a gun, a weak man can kill with a gun, an idiot can kill with a gun, etc. etc. etc.

A coward can kill with a sword but oft he will run, a weak man cannot kill with a sword unless fortune favours him or his opponent is weary, etc. etc. etc.

It takes SKILL to kill with a sword. With a gun you merely need to hit the target (which yes takes skill unless the gun is a machine gun).

“What lies or threats led him on this long march from home, and would he not rather have stayed there... in peace?”

Not all reasons for going to war are bravery.

Nobility in battle? Chivalry? Yes there was some but no warfare is not pleasant. We glorify it because well - we have to justify our bloodlust. Better were the days when you were more likely to be killed by a worthy opponent than by a bullet.

[Nikos]

Thank you.

A coward can kill with a gun, a weak man can kill with a gun, an idiot can kill with a gun, etc. etc. etc.

A coward can kill with a sword but oft he will run, a weak man cannot kill with a sword unless fortune favours him or his opponent is weary, etc. etc. etc.

It takes SKILL to kill with a sword. With a gun you merely need to hit the target (which yes takes skill unless the gun is a machine gun).

“What lies or threats led him on this long march from home, and would he not rather have stayed there... in peace?”

Not all reasons for going to war are bravery.

Nobility in battle? Chivalry? Yes there was some but no warfare is not pleasant. We glorify it because well - we have to justify our bloodlust. Better were the days when you were more likely to be killed by a worthy opponent than by a bullet.

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Obviously you have never shot a firearm if you think it doesn't take any skill to hit a target. Well it does, even with automatic weapons. It takes a lot more then spraying and praying to down a target. Just shooting with an automatic weapon in the general direction of your target will NOT result in a lot of hits. and all this talk of cowards is nonsense. Like I said, it takes as much bravery to kill a man with a sword as with a gun.

Besides, Medieval and Ancient battles did not involve duels between individuals like Hollywood has shown us. They were shoving matches between the opposing lines of Infantry. When the Romans advanced into battle, they would protect themselves with their shields and slash at their opponents ankles and legs from behind the protection of their shields. Not very honorable or skillful is it? In Hoplite warfare, the spear was thrusted at the shoulders and exposed parts of the body while hiding behind a shield, again, not very brave is it?

Medieval infantry worked the same way, Byzantine Infantry would form the fulkon (like a mobile testudo with spears sticking out from the front) and advance toward the enemy. When engaged, the usual shoving match ensued with ankle and groin shots. Western Medieval infantry had much the same tactics, if a bit less organized. Added to this was the presence of arrow fire and artillery on the Ancient and Medieval battlefield. Some like the Persians and Byzantines relied greatly on archery to win their battles. Again, killing from far away, not "honorable" to you.

My point is this, warfare then and now was (and is) a horrible business. In both examples skill and bravery are needed to win the fight, just different types of skills. One cannot pick up a firearm and become an expert marksman overnight, the way one cannot pick up sword and shield and become an expert infantryman overnight. This is my final post on this, as we have become WAY off topic.

[Kassandros]

+rep

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Obviously you have never shot a firearm if you think it doesn't take any skill to hit a target. Well it does, even with automatic weapons. It takes a lot more then spraying and praying to down a target. Just shooting with an automatic weapon in the general direction of your target will NOT result in a lot of hits. and all this talk of cowards is nonsense. Like I said, it takes as much bravery to kill a man with a sword as with a gun.

Besides, Medieval and Ancient battles did not involve duels between individuals like Hollywood has shown us. They were shoving matches between the opposing lines of Infantry. When the Romans advanced into battle, they would protect themselves with their shields and slash at their opponents ankles and legs from behind the protection of their shields. Not very honorable or skillful is it? In Hoplite warfare, the spear was thrusted at the shoulders and exposed parts of the body while hiding behind a shield, again, not very brave s it?

Medieval infantry worked the same way, Byzantine Infantry would form the fulkon (like a mobile testudo with spears sticking out from the front) and advance toward the enemy. When engaged, the usual shoving match ensued with ankle and groin shots. Western Medieval infantry had mch the same tactics, if a but less organized. Added to this was the presence of arrow fire and artillerey on the Ancient and Medieval battlefield. Some like the Persians and Byzantines relied greatly on archery to win their battles. Again, killing from far away, not "honorbale' to you.

My point is this, warfare then and now was (and is) a horrible business. In both examples skill and bravery are needed to win the fight, just different types of skills. One cannot pick up a firearm and become an expert marksman overnight, the way one cannot pick up sword and shield and become an expert infantryman overnight. This is my final post on this, as we have become WAY off topic.

[Shocked]

Comeon guys let's stop this topic already, it has been voted down, and im not sure how well they could possibly be made.
Btw there are better things to focus on in improving TATW.

[Blackomur89]

No, please continue, the sooner the thread will get closed if you do.

[Evan MF]

Yes, well my poll proves that most people do not want the Army of Dead as a unit. So I am happy.

The best options are to have it as atrait, ancillary or just not to include it.

[Inarus]

I know exactly how much skill it takes to kill with a gun, America's Army alone will tell you that. It may be a game but you still can get the feel of accuracy that is needed. There are tactics in ancient warfare, you listed them, and none of them are cowardly because the soldiers are actually involved and one wrong move and the formation shatters. You can no longer match two units where one will be better but will be worse against another: cavalry can mow down infantry but spears will prevent them from doing so. Like I said guns will kill on a battlefield as long as they hit (unless the wounded man is hit somewhere non-vital and gets help before he bleeds out). There never was any honour in battle but there is more honour to be engaged and to see the whites of your enemy's eyes before you kill him. That way at least will you understand the people you are fighting and how desperate they are. If you kill someone with a gun the victim is just another and you aren't affected equally to a victim of a sword.

This is also my final post on this, as we have become WAY off topic.

So, in accordance to general opinion, how are we implementing the Army of the Dead?

[Finlander]

Yes, maybe you guys are right. There are much else to do like Rohirrims help for Gondor and such...
The Army of Death is not so importand right now so maybe its better to focus on those really importand things.
If somebody knows that the death army is possible to make, maybe we should not discuss about it until that.
But the mod need much ideas like it. Army of death and balrogs and other like that what we havent seen before makes this mod really unique.

[Evan MF]

I know exactly how much skill it takes to kill with a gun, America's Army alone will tell you that. It may be a game but you still can get the feel of accuracy that is needed. There are tactics in ancient warfare, you listed them, and none of them are cowardly because the soldiers are actually involved and one wrong move and the formation shatters. You can no longer match two units where one will be better but will be worse against another: cavalry can mow down infantry but spears will prevent them from doing so. Like I said guns will kill on a battlefield as long as they hit (unless the wounded man is hit somewhere non-vital and gets help before he bleeds out). There never was any honour in battle but there is more honour to be engaged and to see the whites of your enemy's eyes before you kill him. That way at least will you understand the people you are fighting and how desperate they are. If you kill someone with a gun the victim is just another and you aren't affected equally to a victim of a sword.

This is also my final post on this, as we have become WAY off topic.

So, in accordance to general opinion, how are we implementing the Army of the Dead?

Why do we have so much variety of guns. We have rocket-weapons to repell tanks. Tanks to holf off regular inf, planes to take down ships, anit air guns to take down planes ...etc

The situation is the same: contantly developing new weapons to counter the opposition. I do not think you can distinguish the amount of glory from ancient warfare, medieval, napoleonic or modern. It is all the same with different levels of technology.

[Inarus]

Why do we have so much variety of guns. We have rocket-weapons to repell tanks. Tanks to holf off regular inf, planes to take down ships, anit air guns to take down planes ...etc

The situation is the same: contantly developing new weapons to counter the opposition. I do not think you can distinguish the amount of glory from ancient warfare, medieval, napoleonic or modern. It is all the same with different levels of technology.

I mean man vs man not machines. Machines ruin warfare even more, that is why in LotR only the enemy has machines (catapults excused).

[Lordinquisitor]

Guns are the cowards weapon of choice, for when you kill someone you owe him to look in his eyes as they fade.

And while guns require skill, too, it`s certainly is easier to kill with a gun than it`s in close combat with an sword.

But i woulnd`t say guns require less tactics, they require different tactics.

[Blackomur89]

when you kill someone you owe him to look in his eyes as they fade.

Edrard Stark!
My idol.

[Nikos]

I know exactly how much skill it takes to kill with a gun, America's Army alone will tell you that. It may be a game but you still can get the feel of accuracy that is needed

Epic fail, you cannot gauge how much skill shooting a firearm is by playing a computer game, it's impossible.

[Nero Wulf]

The Silvian Elfs have Ents as mercenaries. Why wouldn't Army of Death be hire-able by Gondor