What d'ya think/Remake of the Barbarians

[Disto]

And the whole happy family....

[Disto]

Ok to make it show up better i will post it again.

[turin]

Urg... USE BLACK TEXT FROM NOW ON, OK? \

Comments:

The Mauler looks like he is hugging someone, and there is somehow an axe floating unsupported in front of him. Uncross his arms.

The Axeman would make a good replacement for the Scout, which, while good, doesn't fit with the rest. And the units are too similar to have both of them.

How do you go from an axeman to a mounted axeman? I guess it would be OK, but I just find it rather odd.

The scorcher and lord look exactly the same except one has a torch. Change their poses! Also, it is very odd having a shield at level 1 but nowhere else. Why would you give away your main defence?

[Harpalus]

I agree about the black text. Perhaps he manages to find a horse whenever he levels? Or, if he's killed a mounted unit, he stole their horse? It doesn't matter excessively, as other units mystically gain swords, armour, weapons and whatnot upon levelling. Suppose the horse might be a little much though. I like it.

[Disto]

The axeman, is supposed to be the kind of pratical clansmen/peasant who is picked from the strongest, still not much weaker than the warrior and he has a weak ranged. I'm going to work on the Scorcher.

Believe it or not the scout will be more expensive then the axeman and will be able to move quicker through bad terrain, so on favorable terrain the mounted axeman would be better and on bad the scout will be.

[turin]

I agree about the black text. Perhaps he manages to find a horse whenever he levels? Or, if he's killed a mounted unit, he stole their horse? It doesn't matter excessively, as other units mystically gain swords, armour, weapons and whatnot upon levelling. Suppose the horse might be a little much though. I like it.

IMHO, it keeps the spirit of the faction to have mounted units be available only at level 2, but it is odd for other reasons, namely, how the heck did he get the horse?

Also, in LOTR (yes, I know WINT), Gimli says, when riding to Helm's Deep with Eomer, that "an axe is no weapon for a horseman" or something like that. And it makes sense. A sword is light enough to use from horseback, but an axe really isn't...

[zinder]

Its loot. If i remmeber correctly they are supposed to go around looting and pillaging. And in the villages there are plenty of horses, arent there?

Weapons on horseback dont have lower weight limits than weapons for foot soldiers. A heavier weapon is more useful on horseback than a lighter one since rider mainly attack downward.
Not every axe is useable on horseback and its hard to learn. But the simple one in the graphic would work from horseback.
With an axe mounted-fitness depends on the design way more than with a sword. Also i dont know which axe gimli is carrying in that shot, but from the looks only his "walking axe" is suited for horseback.

[turin]

Its loot. If i remmeber correctly they are supposed to go around looting and pillaging. And in the villages there are plenty of horses, arent there?

I know this, but I think most people who saw it would not immediately say "oh, he stole a horse from a nearby village", they would say, "what the heck? where'd he get the horse?".


My main point is you would really need to emphasize the stealing of the horse in the unit's description, and even then it might not go down too well with some users.

[Disto]

Burnsabers the creative genius for our descriptions.

This is what he has got for axemen.

"While other warriors have gone raiding, these warriors make sure that the village has enough food by gathering it hunting. They also keep care of the village defenses while others are gone. Some marauders chiefs take the most able ones with them to raiding trips and leaving someone weaker behind."

But we haven't done any others yet.

[Disto]

Ok i've changed the scorcher somewhat.

[Disto]

Ok i've changed the face on the scout a bit, hopefully it fits slightly more now.

[Disto]

Ok i know the head looked out of place, so courtesy of Neo (even though he doesn't know yet), i've removed one of the heads from his stuff, as he can do a lot higher quality heads then me.

[Disto]

Shadow has been very kind and provided us with a new axehead for the axeman.

[Disto]

Ok i've changed the scorcher somewhat.

Damn thats not going to work either is it.

[Disto]

I agree about the black text. Perhaps he manages to find a horse whenever he levels? Or, if he's killed a mounted unit, he stole their horse? It doesn't matter excessively, as other units mystically gain swords, armour, weapons and whatnot upon levelling. Suppose the horse might be a little much though. I like it.

IMHO, it keeps the spirit of the faction to have mounted units be available only at level 2, but it is odd for other reasons, namely, how the heck did he get the horse?

Also, in LOTR (yes, I know WINT), Gimli says, when riding to Helm's Deep with Eomer, that "an axe is no weapon for a horseman" or something like that. And it makes sense. A sword is light enough to use from horseback, but an axe really isn't...

An axe can one of the most powerful weapons from horse back, charging towards the enemy a horseman used to be able to smash their shield can then on the next blow smash them, an axe is harder to us from horseback, and definetly simple types only, because only experienced people with a axe could use it well, thats why i chose it for lv. 2. I'm still going to make a woodsmen but i have not got a stance for it so i'm open for suggestions.

I've made some minor and mayor changes, mainly the scorcher has a new stance now.