If Giant Kings was going to have a new Form, which would fit the new Ruler Type?

[Orphalesion]

I know it's early to talk about Giant Kings, and I know that a new form was not promised for Giant Kings.

But...the other two new ruler types we got so far with DLC each were released with a form (or forms) that seemed tailor-made for them thematically. The Dragon Lords were released alongside the Lizardfol form, which fit them both aesthetically, both being reptiles, and thematically, as in AoW2 the Draconians were established as created from dragon eggs using magic and as being in awe of dragons.
Then the Eldritch Sovereigns were released with two forms that fit them; the Insectoid Form and the alien-like Syron form. Again they are a natural fit both aesthetically and thematically (both Insectoids and Syron were associated with the eldritch/abyssal side of the multiverse in Shadow Magic.

So now we are going to get Giants as a new ruler type. And I'm thinking it's a bit disappointing that they don't get a form that is as tailor made to fit with them. And I wonder...if there was a form released alongside them...which one would fit?

Now looking at old lore...the Dwarves were actually associated with the Giants in AoW1, having them as one of their higher level units. And both Dwarves and Giants seem to be involved in the early creation of worlds in Age of Wonders, before it is then "filled with life" by the Elves.
So...might the Dwarves be enough to fill the role of "companion form" for the new ruler type of Giants, or could there be something even more fitting?

A "Giantkin" form seems possible, and we could use another "large" form, but it's also a bit boring. As I have said several times on this form, I'd like to have Mushroom People. And I think they could fit into the Giant theme of world creation as a representation of "early" and subterranean life (but they also wouldn't exactly fit, let's say Fire Giants, if that will be a type of Giant Ruler). Gnomes could also be made to fit (and we could use another small form, which could also be made with Mushroom People), but only if they can be made as different from the Halfling form as Syrons are from Elves and "Ogrekin"(Oni) are from Orcs, and there are illustrations form, for example, Pathfinder that make them sufficiently different. An "Elemental" form seems like it would be better represented through transformations/enchantments.

What ideas and opinions do others have on this topic?

 

[GloatingSwine]

I don't think they're going to get a form, they might get a transformation to go even bigger than Supergrowth (making all your units 1 model).

 

[Diovidius]

A troll or half-giant form would be nice. But I'd also take the ability to make more stocky units.

 

[seperamos]

Hoovyworld, aka bovine.

 

[Whiskeyjack-5691]

I'm actually hoping the Molekin get a makeover for the Giant Kings DLC. I believe they're the least-played form by a wide margin, and as much as I'd like to like them, they're very... Derpy-looking.

 

[Mrixl2520]

Giraffe

 

[Orphalesion]

I'm actually hoping the Molekin get a makeover for the Giant Kings DLC. I believe they're the least-played form by a wide margin, and as much as I'd like to like them, they're very... Derpy-looking.

I just think the moles were a bad concept for AoW4. They are so contrary to the idea of forms not having fixed attributes, plus all they have they just stole from the Dwarves or the Halflings.

 

[Blanch Warren]

Still putting in for big pig

Everyone can get behind big pig.

 

[seperamos]

I just think the moles were a bad concept for AoW4. They are so contrary to the idea of forms not having fixed attributes, plus all they have they just stole from the Dwarves or the Halflings.

Its just not a popular fantasy race/form, and everything they do Ratkin can do better. It's taking up a slot that a more interesting form could take.

 

[Blanch Warren]

It's taking up a slot that a more interesting form could take.

Is that kind of like taking the jobs you didn't want anyway

 

[GloatingSwine]

Its just not a popular fantasy race/form, and everything they do Ratkin can do better. It's taking up a slot that a more interesting form could take.

It is though. Moles have a whole fantasy series of their own (Redwall), Rats have to piggyback on other fantasy properties (Warhammer) or be the villains for mice.

 

[seperamos]

It is though. Moles have a whole fantasy series of their own (Redwall), Rats have to piggyback on other fantasy properties (Warhammer) or be the villains for mice.

Mice and rats were in redwall too. Martin the warrior was a mouse. There's also Mouse guard, Skaven, mouse folk in mtg, various fairy tales and other series I can't think of off the top of my head. Vale of the Vole might be mole related, but I don't see much media regarding them, as opposed to foxes or minotaurs.

I dont hate moles, but the more popular forms should be represented first, and then specific community demanded ones like moles, plant people, etc can be added in as needed. It's the best way to utilize dev resources imo.

 

[Orphalesion]

Is that kind of like taking the jobs you didn't want anyway

But then we need Hynea people to chase the Big Pig people and Meerkat people that put on drag and dance the hula

It is though. Moles have a whole fantasy series of their own (Redwall), Rats have to piggyback on other fantasy properties (Warhammer) or be the villains for mice.

Redwall is a series that includes all sorts of little critters, and the main character (from what I remember) is a mouse (which can be made with the Ratkin form) It is definitely not an example of a series that is focused on moles.
In addition to the mice of Radewall, there's also the Burmecians/Cleyrans in FF IX and the Nezumi in DnD/Pathfinder. Then there are the Rats of Nimh. Yes, also the Skaven.
I have made Rat/Mouse factions based on all of these.

What do the moles have? Mr.Mole in the Wind of the Willows. And he's just a furry Hobbit and then I'd rather have Hobbits.
If we at least could do a Naked Mole rat faction, but that isn't possible with the current cosmetics.

 

[Whiskeyjack-5691]

I just think the moles were a bad concept for AoW4. They are so contrary to the idea of forms not having fixed attributes, plus all they have they just stole from the Dwarves or the Halflings.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by them having "fixed attributes".

And I definitely don't understand how they "stole" anything from Dwarves and Halflings.

 

[Whiskeyjack-5691]

Its just not a popular fantasy race/form, and everything they do Ratkin can do better. It's taking up a slot that a more interesting form could take.

I don't think "it's not popular or widley-used in other media" is a valid arguement. Just because something isn't popular or widely-used doesn't mean it can't be good or enjoyable - especially in a game like AoW4 where one of the key features of the game is that you can create races and cultures that don't adhere to popular conceptions, go against them entirely, or are entirely unqiue and inlike anything in any other fantasy setting.

I'm not sure what the Ratkin do better than the Molekin exactly. Forms are purely cosmetic, and have no effect on gameplay, so neither of them really "do" anything better or worse than the other.

From a purely cosmetic or visual point of view, sure; the Ratkin absolutely look much better/cooler than the Molekin. But the Ratkin have inherently negatives connotations attached to them, both in name and appearance. I feel like the molekin were meant to be the inverse of that, and be a bit more fun, playful, or affable in their designs. But at the moment, they just look a bit too... daft.

And since when is there a hard limit to the number of forms that can be in the game?

 

[Orphalesion]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by them having "fixed attributes".

And I definitely don't understand how they "stole" anything from Dwarves and Halflings.

Moles are underground creatures. There is no mole species that lives anywhere but the underground. So the underground adaptation is baked into them, and this would have worked better in earlier instalments where the races had fixed attributes and flavour.
(in contrast there are toads/frogs and rats that live in diverse environments, which makes it easier to, for example create a Toadkin faction that doesn't live in swamps)
And that's also what they stole from Dwarves. Underground Adaptation should have been one of the standard traits for Dwarfkin, instead it was given to the Moles, robbing the Dwarves of one of their defining traits (and yes, almost all my custom Dwarf factions have Underground Adaptation, but I'm talking of the standard traits)
And the Official Mole Factions are basically furry Dwarves.

I'm not sure what the Ratkin do better than the Molekin exactly. Forms are purely cosmetic, and have no effect on gameplay, so neither of them really "do" anything better or worse than the other.

Rats and Mice have more things associated with them, which makes it easier to create factions for them.

 

[Whiskeyjack-5691]

Moles are underground creatures. There is no mole species that lives anywhere but the underground. So the underground adaptation is baked into them, and this would have worked better in earlier instalments where the races had fixed attributes and flavour.
(in contrast there are toads/frogs and rats that live in diverse environments, which makes it easier to, for example create a Toadkin faction that doesn't live in swamps)
And that's also what they stole from Dwarves. Underground Adaptation should have been one of the standard traits for Dwarfkin, instead it was given to the Moles, robbing the Dwarves of one of their defining traits (and yes, almost all my custom Dwarf factions have Underground Adaptation, but I'm talking of the standard traits)
And the Official Mole Factions are basically furry Dwarves.


Rats and Mice have more things associated with them, which makes it easier to create factions for them.

What?

Real life moles live underground, so that means the anthropomorphic moles in this video game set in a fantasy make-believe world have to live underground too?

The moles "robbed" the Dwarves of a defining racial trait?

...What?

 

[Orphalesion]

What?

Real life moles live underground, so that means the anthropomorphic moles in this video game set in a fantasy make-believe world have to live underground too?

The moles "robbed" the Dwarves of a defining racial trait?

...What?

It doesn't offer much inspiration. Plus what's the point of Moles if they don't live underground. It's their thing, and you say, they don't exactly convince with their design either.
And fact is that the Underground trait was given to the Moles and not the Dwarves.

I think these things are easy to understand.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Also like, "stole" is a strong word for underground adaptation, one of the worst form traits because starting underground is an active hindrance.

 

[seperamos]

I don't think "it's not popular or widley-used in other media" is a valid arguement. Just because something isn't popular or widely-used doesn't mean it can't be good or enjoyable - especially in a game like AoW4 where one of the key features of the game is that you can create races and cultures that don't adhere to popular conceptions, go against them entirely, or are entirely unqiue and inlike anything in any other fantasy setting.

I'm not sure what the Ratkin do better than the Molekin exactly. Forms are purely cosmetic, and have no effect on gameplay, so neither of them really "do" anything better or worse than the other.

From a purely cosmetic or visual point of view, sure; the Ratkin absolutely look much better/cooler than the Molekin. But the Ratkin have inherently negatives connotations attached to them, both in name and appearance. I feel like the molekin were meant to be the inverse of that, and be a bit more fun, playful, or affable in their designs. But at the moment, they just look a bit too... daft.

And since when is there a hard limit to the number of forms that can be in the game?

Every game, every project, has a certain amount of resources needed to continue development of the game as a whole. That includes updates, DLCs, cosmetics, and things of that nature. It makes financial sense to steer development towards popular concepts that will help sell the games and DLC.

I would rather see Triumph use their resources in providing more variations within forms and provide extra base equipment for certain forms, 3d modeling and animations for primary and secondary weapons use, expand mount compatibility with weapons and armor, expand item wearing and removal capabilities similiar to weapons and shields, and other quality of life features that will make the game more immersive and interesting to play. More forms focus WILL detract from other areas of the game that can be improved, and I can't think of any other game that has such a variety of forms included already, for both RPG AND strategy involvement.

I just don't see the necessity of moles. Anyway, they're already in but there should start being less emphasis on forms and more on gameplay improvements.