I don't agree with that assessment at all.

And I'd say the fall of Lordaeron was more important than the fall of Dalaran, which was about humanity either way anyway.

__________________
"The Demons did their job well. You creatures are as reckless and bloodthirsty as they ever were."

It's the manner in which they fell. Lordaeron fell through relatively conventional means. Dalaran was the Hiroshima of Azeroth.

At any rate, the conflict comes down to the Night Elves vs. the Legion. The Humans suffer grave side effects, but they are not the main players in the conflict. The biggest part that any Human plays is ... being killed, being reborn as an undead, and then summoning Archimonde.

Arthas is the pivotal character in the rise of Archimonde, the Lich King's champion. I don't... really see how you can summarize around that.

And he's the one who plays a key role in orchestrating their downfall.

Thrall and Grom don't really do much in the story proper, bu they definitely play an important thematic role.

__________________
"The Demons did their job well. You creatures are as reckless and bloodthirsty as they ever were."

If we're talking about an in-universe historical retrospective, that's going to depend entirely on who is writing the history. A night elf is probably going to call it "the Second Invasion" and emphasize how the night elves had to sacrifice their immortality in order to stop Archimonde. A Stormwinder is going to emphasize the fall of humanity.

__________________


Expect nothing and anything will surprise you.

Not if you're taking the course at the University of Orgrimmar. This entire era will be called something like the "Rebirth of the Horde", or the "Great Thrall Era", or the "Conquest of Kalimdor", or the "Roaring Twenties".

Ahem!

You guys have a point that different groups will emphasize different aspects of the history. BUT, whether you're an Orc or a Human or a Night Elf, the Night Elf vs. Legion conflict will be recognized as the central conflict of the era. Different countries learn about their own history during, say, World War II, but in every country you will learn about the main playes: Germany, US, Japan, UK, etc.

And as far as the central conflict of RoC goes, Arthas was mostly a pawn running errands for Tichondrius and serving as the footman who does the dirty work for Kel'Thuzad; Archimonde doesn't even deign to speak a single word to him, only conversing with Kel'Thuzad. And while Arthas did make a key contribution (kind of up to interpretation, but in my interpretation the death of Tichondrius did play a significant part in Archimonde's fall), he was hardly central comapred to Illidan, who was still less central than Furion. None of the story would have happened without Arthas, for he was the man of action who realized the plans of Tichondrius, Kel'Thuzad, and Ner'zhul; but he didn't have an independent goal.

I'd say Grom arguably did more significant things, killing a demigod and a demigod-level demon lord, though in some sense his contributions almost cancel out. In fact, I think his contributions were net negative (from the point of view of Furion and co.). Taking out Mannoroth is all good, but it's unclear what exact strategic purpose it served; whereas Cenarius is pretty much the most powerful being on the side of Azeroth (not counting the Dragon Aspects, who didn't seem to be bothering).

Baron Grackle: I'd love to play those campagins, but I think it'd be more in line with the established format for Blizzard to pick just one of those eras; all the events in any single Warcraft or Starcraft game happen within the span of a few years at most. Besides, the focus will allow/force them to fill in the details and expand the related lore.

With that in mind (specifically the element of what Blizzard would do in terms of actually building WC4) I'd like to question why the historical perspective of the Third War from centuries in the future is relevant here. I don't think Blizzard would necessarily choose to jump that far into the future, regardless of how much folks here want them to get away from the entanglement of WoW's series of events.

If it's impossible to do a game that can work in tandem with WoW's timeframe, then doing a game in a past timeframe that can then be expanded upon in WoW is probably the most feasible option.

__________________


Expect nothing and anything will surprise you.

Perhaps you're misunderstanding me? My point about the Third War was that it wasn't heavy on Humans and Orcs, and that hence Warcraft could still possibly be Warcraft even without Humans or Orcs. I was explicitly pushing for a "past" expansion rather than a "future" expansion.

Actually, in school the vast majority of what I learned about WWII was about Britain, the USA and the rise of Nazi Germany. Very little was about Russia despite the Russians being the ones to actually break the German armed forces. Russia should have a far greater focus than it does.

As for Arthas he was pivotal in crushing Lordaeron (and by extension the other Eastern Kingdoms destroyed by the Scourge) so quickly. Without him it is possible that the Burning Legion would have been postphoned or possibly even prevented altogether (though I find it unlikely that they'd have been stopped). A major advantage the Scourge had was the surprise factor; the longer they were held back the more would be learnt about them; their strengths and weakness.

In regards to Grom, he also continually antagonised every race he came across; sometimes in direct disobedience to Thrall's orders. Without him it's less likely so many Orcs would have been corrupted by Mannoroth a second time. I'm inclined to agree that he did more harm than good. Despite that I don't think he did more significant things. Arthas was central to toppling the Eastern Kingdoms opposed to him in such a speedy fashion, resurrecting Kel'thuzard and summoning the Burning Legion to Azeroth.

__________________
"It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protestor to burn the flag."
- Father Dennis Edward O'Brian, USMC

That doesn't make him not an important character, and he did have a goal.

That's just... not true.

__________________
"The Demons did their job well. You creatures are as reckless and bloodthirsty as they ever were."

What was Arthas's goal other than (rather blindly) serving the Lich King?

He is literally a quester (more interested in Icecrown reputation than items or gold), accomplishing objectives handed out to him by Tichondrius and Kel'Thuzad. He doesn't even really know what he's doing until he figures it out from Kel'Thuzad (in the Blackrock mission); and when he learns that the purpose of all his actions was for the Legion invasion, he doesn't seem to care one way or the other. The first time he displays any real emotion is when Archimonde disposes of the Lich King, and when Kel'Thuzad calms him down by mentioning the 'grand design,' he is just as clueless as we are about the Lich King's overall plan. The only independent initiative he ever took was turning Sylnavas into a banshee.

A quester is still important for he's the one that gets the job done. But he was not one who shaped the course of history; he followed the course that was planned by others.

Is there an objective to this argument that Arthas wasn't a prominent character in the Third War?

Because I think if your core argument is that "you could do a Warcraft story without having to involve orcs or humans in an historically significant way" then yeah, that's been well-demonstrated.

The problem is that "historically significant" and "dramatically significant" are two different positions. Arthas and his downfall are core dramatic elements of Warcraft 3 because Blizzard wanted to flip around the tropes they'd been playing with in the first two games: namely, they wanted to sell the orcs as noble savages seeking redemption, while the wanted to sell the humans as having an irredeemable fall to darkness, whereas "savage orcs and resilient humans" was what they'd sold in WC1/2/2x.

Arthas is dramatically significant for the story of Reign of Chaos and The Frozen Throne. He's important because the story we're playing through is a story with a beginning, middle, and end, and not a historical re-telling of events.

__________________


Expect nothing and anything will surprise you.

Regarding your distinction between dramatic significance and historical significance, I completely agree, and concede that RoC does nothing to prove that Blizzard can/will make a Warcraft RTS that does not involve the Orcs and Humans in a dramatically significant way. I still find the discussion about the historical roles of characters in the Third War enjoyable on its own.

The Frozen Throne on the other hand still stands (though one could say that there is overall just less drama in TFT).

I think there's merit to be had in that discussion, but I think it might warrant its own thread, since it's pretty evident that folks just want to wishlist stuff for Warcraft 4 here.

__________________


Expect nothing and anything will surprise you.

Yes, that is true.. It wasn't my intention to derail the thread.

I love it!

__________________

Say no to genocide!
Save the Nightborne!

A game where you can play as the Amani AND the old horde? Where do I sign?

Grackle as concept developer for Warcraft 4. Let's petition!

__________________

Say no to genocide!
Save the Nightborne!

You know there's this game called war for the overworld that was created as a spiritual followers to dungeon keeper by fans of the franchise (it started before ea necromanced it into a shitty tablet game), I can really see that happening for warcraft rts in future days. And for that project we need Grackle as the idea guy.

Right here.

I'm working on Hordecraft and it is currently in a very early stage of development :3 Please look forward to a tired dose of #savage.

__________________

I get the Dark Ranger, and while I don't love "Blood Lich", I can agree with the inclusion of Elves & the neat admixture of "Blood Mage" & "Lich"... But "Death Knights"? How do they get access to the corrupted Paladins of the Scourge (or is this something else entirely)? And what is the distinction between your 4th suggestion "Ranger Lord" and the "Dark Ranger"? Even if they *are* wildly different, I would consider renaming them to fit; it just sounds weird.

I'm sad about Apothecaries being demoted. :< And I'm 'meh' about Val'kyr. Deathguard & Plague Wagons makes good sense, though.

~~~

I just searched through all my posts on the Warcraft 4: Factions thread, and surprisingly I haven't said anything about this.

I, too, (as, I'm sure, dozens of others) have considered an RTS application of the Forsaken. It is a worthy goal. I wouldn't mind seeing more from your write-up...

In the mean-time, I'll put up a bit about the Heroes, since I'm curious about some outside thoughts:

It's been through a lot.

The first set was sort of "immediately after TFT - before hearing about WoW" plans; I basically ripped it right from the campaign (Dark Ranger as presented, alternate "Nathrezim Exile" support caster dude (Varimathras), and a possessed "Dark Knight" melee support dude (Garithos). Bleh. I've come to believe that a "Nathrezim Exile" was not a sustainable hero-idea (i.e. there couldn't be enough of them to justify a "hero class" in the same sense as "Archmage" or "Demon Hunter"), and I realized that I wanted to make this as an addition to the game, so re-using the existing Dark Ranger was out, too (but a remake would be doable, see below).

Soon after hearing about WoW, I became enamored with the idea of a Grand/Royal/Dark Apothecary dude, and am pretty certain he should be in the end-product. (undead glass-caster support/damage dude). Something about it just seems so perfect; he's an ideal caster (but unique from, say, the Archmage/Blood Mage/Lich/Far Seer/KotG because instead of drawing his powers from 'magic', he draws it from 'alchemy', as it were), he's FULL of thematic character & neat design touches... Just, ah.

The 2nd iteration (too many) sort of flirts with a few different things, but unfortunately relies too much on existing resources that I became infatuated with.
- In a fit of pique (and to fulfill my aforementioned intentions) I split the "dark ranger" into two parts; a truly-archery-focused Ranger hero with a touch of ghosts (i.e. alternate Dark Ranger, "wraith strider") and a more-ghostly-focused lady with ethereal powers (i.e. hero-version of Banshee, "banshee queen").
- This was helped/complicated by the Deadeye model that excited me to consider that as the "archery-focused alternative-Dark-Ranger" (However, the question there is more: "does it make sense for one of the Forsaken champions to be a Skeleton? Especially when they were summon fodder for so long (both Undead & Forsaken) & (something else)?)
- The "Dark/Black Knight" is as seen before, but...
- the "Grim Archon" was a questionable decision to try & incorporate a Wc2-Death-Knight-styled hero into the game; basically an evil Archmage with summon/control/death powers ("Death Knight's done the right way"). This folds nicely into my belief that the Forsaken would be made up primarily of dead/turned Elves (Quel'thalas, and followers of Sylvanas), Humans (dead of Lordaeron & all that), and Dalaran-ians (Humans & Elves, and also due to the fall of Quel'thalas, and due to their somewhat-less-big-meaty-beastly-bent, compared to the Scourge); the "Grim Archon" could almost literally be an Undead Archmage in the same style as the Wc3 Death Knight is an Undead Paladin. Nice bit of parallelism.

That leads me finally to the last chunk.
- The "Dark Ranger" is back & in parentheses because I came to the realization that a "5th-race-addition" style only goes so far. So instead, by accepting that this could be a "wc3 remake" instead of an "addition", the original Dark Ranger opens up again for usage (and, since I thought she was pretty cool & designed quite well, it's a strong contender).
- Alchemist is love. Alchemist is life.
- "Dark/Black Knight" is a bit of a frustration for me... I like the idea, but the resource is questionable (probably just use Garithos, maybe, though I have plans for that guy...). He's gone from everything between "possessed human" to "evil general" to "wc3-death-knight-remake" to "shadowy spirit warlord". I'm not sure I love or hate him; indifference is an issue with me on this guy.
- The Grim Archon has all the pros & cons mentioned above. Torn. However, I feel 2 "caster" heroes is a solid fit for the Forsaken.

To me, the Forsaken are cooler Undead. I liked the Scourge in Wc3 well-enough, but some things about it I didn't love. Forsaken were always sorta my "undead outlet", for all the cool undead ideas that didn't fit elsewhere.
I think it's important for any Forsaken race to be sufficiently differentiated (thematically & design-wise) from the Undead Scourge.
- Thematically, I think the 'low-hanging fruit' here is to remove all the Nerubian references & Ice-powers. That's kind of a big thing for the Scourge, being based in Northrend & all that; Wc3's Scourge is essentially "Dark, Icy Egyptians" (both thematically & mechanically), with a dash of "Zerg" in there (cheaper, consumable troops). To me, Forsaken are more located in ruined Lordaeron/Quel'thalas/Dalaran, and so are necessarily more focused on Human-like & Elven architecture, as well as anything-but-Ice-powers. Also, less corpses/skellies/etc (since they don't really have much in the way of raising the dead through necromancy), with a greater emphasis on wraiths/spirits/phantasms (aligned with Banshee Queen, no doubt). And creatures.
- Mechanically, I would want to run with the idea of emphasizing how the Forsaken can't really raise Undead, and instead must depend on the (dwindling) numbers they now have. Thus they would more highly-prize each individual unit (harder to kill), at the cost of more resources (more expensive). In a way, sort of the "Protoss" to the Wc3 Scourge's "Zerg" (&, to be even more pointed, the Sc2 "Immortals" to the Sc1's "Dragoons").

Thoughts?

/longthoughtislong

Interesting. Doing something similar. Do tell?

__________________
(The User Formerly Known as 'Triumvirate')
If you're interested in creating custom factions & heroes in Warcraft 3, I mod that over at The Hive Workshop (Also at Wc3C.net).

My primary Project Thread:
https://www.hiveworkshop.com/threads...ehere_.303712/

I think Apothecaries make good sense as workers for the Forsaken. I had some cool ideas for how they could make use of toxins and poisons as a sort of natural defense (which undead lacked in WC3) for the race.

And I think Val'kyr are a really cool visual and I had some neat ideas for their spells. Like, the "Power Overwhelming" card in Hearthstone combined with the WoW DK's 'dark transformation' ability. As a sort of replacement for Unholy Frenzy.

Basically, Val'kyr transforms any friendly undead into a big monstrosity for x seconds, with lots of health that does a fair bit of damage. Then when the duration is over, the unit dies. Combined with their raise dead ability, I thought it was a bit more interesting than just a simple buff.

Death Knights were Ebon Blade knights who had sworn fealty to Sylvanas. Death Knight is a core concept of the Undead race at this point, a necessary inclusion in my mind. It's also probably the best designed hero in WC3 and I'd hate to lose that.

Ranger Lord was basically Lor'themor. Ranged units for the Forsaken were living Blood Elven archers. (Who I hadn't quite figured out how to distinguish from Night Elven Archers yet) But having living units like Blood Elven spellbreakers and Blood Elven archers played into a new sacrificial pit mechanic which allowed you to transform them into undead versions of the units.

Scourge units and heroes still had a role in my WC4. Liches and Dreadlords were Tavern heroes with basically the same ability kits. Then my whole Merc Camp concept had a Scourge and Cult of the Damned version.

For reference:

Cult of the Damned camps had Acolytes (5 built at one time) that could summon Haunted Gold Mines and Ziggurats. Necromancers, with basically the same ability kit and then Obsidian Statues with basically the same kit, that could morph into Destroyers. With fitting gold/lumber costs and recharge timers.

Scourge camps had Crypt Fiends, Gargoyles and Frost Wyrms I think. Again, fitting costs and recharge timers.

__________________
"The Demons did their job well. You creatures are as reckless and bloodthirsty as they ever were."

1. Heroes who can influence your base economy while also being able to help defend the base. Examples: Dwarven Prospectors, who can find Gold in used up gold minds and who have a shotgun to deal with problems; Orcish Overseers, who use the whips to increase the movement and attack/gathering speed of peons and warriors alike.

2. Strategic Global Conquest campaigns.

3. The ability to Create somewhat customized heroes for said campaigns.

When I'm trying to imagine Warcraft 4 in these "Big Pauldrons" times I do not see anything good.
But okay, let's get a grip on yourself.
Warcraft 4, if it had to exist it wouldn't be sequel of World of Warcraft, because WoW sucks and is too messed to gather all this shit together and suddenly make an RTS from it.
This game would be sequel or spin-off. There is so rich lore between WC1 and WC3 which wasn't presented in-game.
Whichever plot timeline would they choose it is obvious for me they would leave classic races - Orcs and Humans alone.
In human case we would have their good old loyal units:
- Peasant - as always, lowly, hard-working subject with his unstopped pickaxe. Like in WC3 he could gear-up into Militia in the Town Hall. I would also like Militia look same modest - quilted armor with some studs, sallet, hatchet and hand pavise.
- Footman - tough guy with boxer nose always ready to serve. Geared with barbute, cuirass with faulds and not too big spaulders, armed with broad sword and kite shield used to defense up. Would love some formations, shield walls or even testudo things
- Knight - WC3 knight image was the best imho. I would like him like this in WC4. Full plate armor with pauldron on one arm and gardbrace on the second. Pauldron arm wields a longsword while gardbrace one wields a lance. Passive ability: The more distance the Knight covers the more damage he causes on the first hit when he reaches enemy unit. Up to some limit.

This would already please me. The rest of units I leave for Blizzard.

What about Orcs - Peons could wield javelins and small shield like this:

Grunts with some not too big shields too (they fight with their axe with one hand anyway) like this:

...and some Raiders and big guys (Ogres) I guess. I'm not a big fan of Orcs.

There is not such thing like Tothrezim, it's only Nathrezim. Tothrezim is some fanfiction RPG bullshit.