Avatar of Willy Vereb

Status

Recent Statuses

10 yrs ago
I'll be away on a trip for a few days so my activity will be low
11 yrs ago
I'll be on vacation for a few days so my activity will be low

Bio

User has no bio, yet

Most Recent Posts

<Snipped quote by Willy Vereb>

I actually found Lurtz strangely attractive!

:p
That's not Lurtz, though.
And yeah, most of the important orc characters in LotR were more handsome than the average. Perhaps they thought people didn't wanna watch the ugliest faces upclose.


<Snipped quote by Willy Vereb>

I know what Ogres are mate but yes, Ogres would be an interseting addition although I'd prefer them to be attached to one race as a subspecies or just a general mercenary unit.
I mean that for poorly fed medieval people who at average were 1.60m or so, creatures of great strength and average height above 2m would be indeed giants. Just like how 1.75m tall vikings were considered huge back in their day.

Basically I won't change my race just switch them from being called orcs to ogres. And yes, if there's a need they can indeed eat humans. Albeit they prefer fried meat in general.

<Snipped quote by Willy Vereb>

The common ancestor thing seems okay to me.

If you want a name, you can use what I sometimes call notOrks, Oqers (O-ke-ere-s)

Uruk is a good name for many reasons to me. I just feared it might lead to unitentional confusion.
Well, I am fine with intentional confusion like nations confusing Uruks with the Orruks or in (less likely) the reverse.

So Oquers is neither to my liking nor it'd solve much, I am afraid.
Albeit this gave me a strange idea. Does any of the nations using Ogres?
Ogre is a man-eating "giant" in folklore and while fantasy often puts them as half-giants perhaps making my race the Ogres of this setting could be fitting.
Ogurz would be the specific term but Ogre or Black Orc references would be also common.
What do you think?
@ClocktowerEchosIt just struck me.
Should I come up a different name for my not!-orcs?
I mean they look nothing like @Lauder's.
They are big and muscular but aren't built almost as wide as they are tall. Their anatomy is pretty much human-like.

Orruk and Uruk also sound nearly the same.
Albeit perhaps we can explain this with the two races sharing a common ancestors from the distant past?
What do you think?
How would other nations react to Uruk, as in black orcs looking like this:


... they think you're ugly, too.
Dwarfs are more 'defense/reaction/' than "ATTACK ATTACK" unless someone has pissed them off.
You have Orruk neighbors so just discuss a matter of grudge AKA casus belli with @Lauder and you're all set.


Flying machines can be prevalent in a land based game of strategy and warfare, and they also aren't game changers. A Dwarf in a gyrocopter can be killed by a volley of arrows, or a cannon, or a catapult, or yes indeed, a Griffon rider. Ships however, need water, and no one but you two will be using them. Which was the point. Clock began this game with a specific set of standards in mind, and people deviating from that, no matter how pointless, can change how people view the game, whether or not they need to add anything to their sheet.
I am not willing to continue this argument clogging up the OOC so I make it brief.
You got it backwards.
Having navy or not won't change how people view this game because naval control is of limited importance.
Having Gyrocopters and other kinds of air units is something every player has to contend with. THAT changes the game. Because you need some counters for sure.
So yeah.
Not going to campaign against allowing air units but the reality is what I explained above.

D'oh! All this arguing yet I failed to ask the major question.
@Lauder, do you even want us to have naval battles?
I can easily see Orruk naval contraptions with flaming shots fighting Treasure Ship style vessels. Or anything else you can imagine.
How about you?
Given that you are the only player I can have naval battles for now this could matter a ton, actually.
<Snipped quote by Willy Vereb>

When I said "not turning this into a bitchfest", I meant more towards me since lets just say that my patience isn't exactly sky high right now for either one of you two. Is its childish and immature? Certainly but calling it that doesn't change anything.
That's what my last line was for. It's like poking the beast. Bad idea all around.
Anyways, I put an addendum to it. You may read it and hopefully it helps soothing the tempers.

Also thank you for at least having a bit patience to grant us this chance.
I don't know how warship tiers add up with regular units but the two rarely ever interact to begin with.
At worst instead of tier we rate them at "naval tier" just to avoid confusion.
Generally it's something two players can settle simply and peacefully.

@Aristo@Willy Vereb Instead of turning this into an all out bitchfest and properly souring everyone's moods
Um, you better read my post a second time then.
Maybe when you calmed down and have the peace of mind to not take a belligerent stance.
If people can't even speak to you that's a problem on any level. Be it a mere player or the game master.

...and now I probably added more fuel to your fires even though I wrote my previous post with the exact opposite intent.
Good going, willy.

Ekhm, the point is we aren't bitching. We aren't fighting you.
We try to speak with you and the least of our intent is to bully you into something. We want you to see something. And if you only see enmity from this, you obviously see something wrong.

<Snipped quote by ClocktowerEchos>

There, that wasn't so hard. It shouldn't have had to be something to fight for; those who want to add their own can, those that don't don't have to. Nobody's undermining anyone else's time or effort.
That's the whole point indeed!
It isn't like all players are going to add flying machines to their army lists anytime soon. Yet nobody complained on that.

© 2007-2026
BBCode Cheatsheet