- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 22
I've come back to WarCraft III recently after not having played much for years, and one thing that's really struck me is how weird the system of armour and weapon types is. It seems to me to have some very strange features:
Can anyone give me any insight into why it's designed the way it is? Or, for that matter, why they changed it for The Frozen Throne? (Since Reign of Chaos had a different - and arguably more intuitive - system.)
- A unit's armour rarely bears any relation to the armour it actually appears to be wearing. The most extreme examples include Ghouls and Tauren (heavy armour, despite wearing no armour whatsoever), Huntresses (unarmoured even though they wear more armour than any other Night Elf - although less so with their sexed-up Reforged models), and Mountain Giants (medium armour even though they're made of stone).
- Excluding fortified armour, there doesn't seem to be much (if any) rhyme or reason as to why certain weapon types have the bonuses or penalties they do against certain armour types.
- Heavy armour is weak against magic attacks, but magic attacks are mostly so puny that they are not really relevant as a counter to heavy armoured units. Some heavy armoured units are immune to magic anyway and consequently have no weakness to any weapon type (e.g. Spellbreaker, Golems).
- Some buildings have heavy armour rather than fortified armour, meaning they don't have a particular weakness to siege weapons. This seems to have at least two weird consequences: First, upgrading Reinforced Defenses actually makes Orc Towers and Burrows weaker against siege weapons. Second, Chimaeras deal substantially more damage to heavy-armoured towers before upgrading Corrosive Breath.
Can anyone give me any insight into why it's designed the way it is? Or, for that matter, why they changed it for The Frozen Throne? (Since Reign of Chaos had a different - and arguably more intuitive - system.)