Orc 'cities' a disadvantage?

[Roboute Guilliman]

Well as the title says, I was wondering why orc cities don't get a stone palisade just like other factions when they upgrade their towns.

[eugenioso]

because orcs are idiots who have neither the time nor skills to build stone fortifications. besides, an orc "city" is simply a camp for them to live in, not an actual city. in addition, orcs are supposed to be on the offensive most of the time, not endure a siege.

[Flinn]

lore perhaps ?

Flinn

[Roboute Guilliman]

lore perhaps ?

Flinn

I get the lore part, but then imagine orcs conquer a city of gondor, and well then turn comes where you upgrade it to a large city. Puff, the great defensive walls suddenly disappear and are replaced with wooden palisades...

There is a black gate made out pure steel in Mordor, how about adding that wall around their camps for the 'city' and 'large_city' levels.

Shouldn't we be arguing about whether or not it is easier to attack the orc settlement rather than defend it? considering most players go good factions

Well simply, because the orc factions haven't received the same care as all the others. If there is ever going to come a 4.0, I hope the evil factions get some love.

yeah, but there could be some alterations from stage to stage, like for example elevated ground, slightly heavier palisades, etc...
as it is now, the settlements stay simply the same.

maybe it could be made that goblins simply can't develope to higher settlements - because it is sad, that if you capture those settlements as elves or men, you can'T upgrade them further...
you then would build a real wall!

Seriously, the misty mountain orcs have huge handicaps to overcome.. Crippling them even more, isn't the solution. They are hardly playable as they are now...

The evil factions should be able to put off a good fight, but Gundabag and Moria are currently a real joke.

[DrDragun]

It fits with lore, though ideally orcs would have more cave-based settlements mixed with the palisade camps.

For the player it makes attacking the orcs much easier (particularly with archers, they can simply use the direct fire arc from outside the wall). But if the player is orcish I don't think it's too much of a disadvantage because the open layout helps with orc swarming tactics.

[kraxmause]

But if the player is orcish I don't think it's too much of a disadvantage because the open layout helps with orc swarming tactics.

This. Consider orcs the opposite of dwarves: Dwarves have great stats but are slow, so they are easily surrounded in field battles. Fighting in narrow streets is much easier for them, there their superior stats often make them the winner.
Orcs on the other hand are numerous, but weak. Their only chance to win in settlements is by surrounding and overwhelming the enemy with their superior numbers.
In "normal" (e.g. Gondorian) settlements it would take minutes to maneuver your troops into the back of an enemy unit, while orc settlements make that much easier, they're basically open battlefields with a few obstacles and a plaza.

[atheniandp]

Orcs are evil. Evil is not constructive; it is self-destructive. Hence why the orcs fight amongst themselves. Tolkien's Christian imagery profoundly illuminates and gives life to LoTR. Evil is seemingly endless and popular, inflicting the heart of man, but not powerful.

If you want moral ambiguity, where the evil guys might be constructive, try Game of Thrones. But even Martin shows an obvious good/evil dichotomy, as it is a fundamentally inescapable objective truth.

[k/t]

Sauron built Barad-Dur and the Black Gate. Sounds pretty constructive to me.

[Garriath]

Sauron built Barad-Dur and the Black Gate. Sounds pretty constructive to me.

Bear in mind, though, that it's been proven that Barad-Dur was constructed not by any normal means, but by the black art of prefab housing.

[nein]

>But even Martin shows an obvious good/evil dichotomy, as it is a fundamentally inescapable objective truth

good and evil are about as real as heaven and hell

[atheniandp]

>But even Martin shows an obvious good/evil dichotomy, as it is a fundamentally inescapable objective truth

good and evil are about as real as heaven and hell

Which are certainly real. You need to stop thinking of the mythology and start thinking of the philosophy. Towards the end of The Republic, Plato says that in the event a man that lead a just life out of coercion was reincarnated, he would choose to live the life of indulgence in the appetitive desires. Hence why people think of virgins awaiting them in the afterlife. This is a taste of what think I hell is like; the perpetual longing for material life, the love of the finite and the ignorance of the form of the Good, which is eternal.

On another note, if you truly think that morality is not objective, then I pity you. But at least you're not a new atheist; you realize the necessary nihilism that results in the absence of objective morality.

[RuleBritannia]

Which are certainly real. You need to stop thinking of the mythology and start thinking of the philosophy. Towards the end of The Republic, Plato says that in the event a man that lead a just life out of coercion was reincarnated, he would choose to live the life of indulgence in the appetitive desires. Hence why people think of virgins awaiting them in the afterlife. This is a taste of what think I hell is like; the perpetual longing for material life, the love of the finite and the ignorance of the form of the Good, which is eternal.

On another note, if you truly think that morality is not objective, then I pity you. But at least you're not a new atheist; you realize the necessary nihilism that results in the absence of objective morality.

Tolkien didn't pen up LOTR as a purely philosophical piece. There's a great mix of fantasy action in with it too. The Orcs are shown to, indeed, be self-destructive and evil, but they are excellent craftsmen, and are said to be second only to Dwarves in their mining and digging skill. They're not entirely useless, nor did Tolkien mean them to be useless. Though, indeed, Barad-Dur and the Morannon are bad examples, since it was Sauron, who held a great personal affection for architecture, that led their building with his own sorcerous power, not projects just started by the Orcs.

But let's not get off-topic again, just saying.

[Galain_Ironhide]

>But even Martin shows an obvious good/evil dichotomy, as it is a fundamentally inescapable objective truth

good and evil are about as real as heaven and hell

or as real as LOTR. This is fantasy, of course there is good and evil. That argument really only has firm ground in RL.

Back on topic, orc encampments are fine as just that imo.

edit: sorry ngugi you ninja'd me with the off topic thing

[Ngugi]

This thread is balancing on the edge, please stay on topic

[Basket of Warm Kittens]

They're actually quite excellent if you use defensive catapults, place catapults on the hill and aim at the chokepoint where the enemy floods in

[mondpeiler]

yeah, but there could be some alterations from stage to stage, like for example elevated ground, slightly heavier palisades, etc...
as it is now, the settlements stay simply the same.

maybe it could be made that goblins simply can't develope to higher settlements - because it is sad, that if you capture those settlements as elves or men, you can'T upgrade them further...
you then would build a real wall!

[beermugcarl]

Shouldn't we be arguing about whether or not it is easier to attack the orc settlement rather than defend it? considering most players go good factions

[Altimis]

They don't need to build a home, they borrow a home.

end of story :p

[ThaDoews]

Just bring two catapults or trebuches when attacking the orc settlements. Two ballistas can kill 3/4 of a settlement :o

[beermugcarl]

Just bring two catapults or trebuches when attacking the orc settlements. Two ballistas can kill 3/4 of a settlement :o

which is exactly why the design is a bad thing