As far as heroes go, we can just go crazy with them, number-wise. If there are 80 different types of heroes, fine. It's probably not too hard to make them, since they all are humanoid and walk the same way basically.

We don't need to have a limit on heroes.

I think that there are a bunch of great ideas.

Obviously, we are going to take the classic dk heroes in. The knight, dwarf, and wizard are shoo-ins. probably and elven archer, or some type of archer.

I like the halberdier guy, seems cool. i guess he is like the guard, except with a longer weapon.

Obviously there has to be peasants. if we are going to raid villages, there has to be innocent villagers we can mercilessly slaughter.

I think the samurai is a good idea, but maybe we could incorporate other foreign soldiers? just like oriental archer or something. He is sturdier than the elven archer i suppose.

Paladins are the classic 'good guy.' a holy knight, seems to make sense.

Oh yeah, the monk. same as usual i guess.

I dont really like the witch. I think its great that the heroes have a female spell-caster, but the witch is not a good name. maybe a priestess or a fairy, but don't call her a witch.

Giants are a must have. i am wondering whether we should have many different types of giants (frost giant, fire giant,) or just a giant.

barbarians are a good semi-early unit to face. good in areas where there are lots of minotaurs, seeing as theyre both kinda desert people.

i know that all of these ideas are in the forums somewhere, but i just decided to write them out. for no reason

agreed,

DK 3 was meant to be faught in the realm of heroes and above land, so, the more heroes to devour the better,

I think if you start messing around with different types of a mythical bieng... like fire giants etc, it woudn't work quite as well.
otherwise, i agree :P

Not too sure I agree with different types of one creature. I mean I don't mind the creatures having randomised looks and appearance, but I wouldn't want 3 different types of Archer. 15-20 heroes would be sound IMO.

im just saying there's no reason not to. we can just go crazy, and make maps look creative and be more interesting.

Agreed.

In essence, I would say there is one major faction that represents the typical medieval knight's castle archtype, with various other minor factions (elves, barbarians, etc...) providing other heroes.

This DOESN'T mean all heroes should be allies and all heroes should be used in the same group, but it could. It simply means they are all labelled "Hero", goodies, controlled by player white, regardless of their individual affairs.

In the major faction I would picture a basic lineup of unit:

Melee:
- Militia
- Guard / Halbardier (Although I liked picturing them wielding a single axe)
- Knight
- Paladin
- Angel

Ranged:
- Archer
- Wizard
- Monk



Those would be the standard units under the main faction, and minor factions could add a few extra units to the overall hero arsenal:

Elves:
- Woodelf Archer / Ranger
- Fairy
- Druid?

Oriental:
- Samurai

Wastelands:
- Raider
- Barbarian
- Witch? Shaman?

Northerners: (viking theme?)
- Dwarf
- Viking
- Giant (types?)



What it would basicly means is that using units from different 'factions' in one group in a map is possible, BUT should be kept to a minimum in order to maintain a sense of loyalty to their own kin. It also provides more of a background, rather than just "the heroes". In one map you could for example need to defeat the heroes, with a small section of Wastelanders in the North, and a bigger faction of Knight's Castle to the south east.

Okay, I think I see where you're coming from. You have to remember though we're talking about an island as opposed to a continent.

Certainly, if there's an Elf garrison at one particular stage, that's a good idea. Or if there are cold bits of the island, it's more likely that more cold resistant creatures and heroes will be found there - giants, barbarians and dwarves. If that's what you're getting at, then fair play.

We're going to need to think of what types of heroes we're going to have. In DK1, I thought the Samurai was out of place, however, I'm quite willing to accept the idea that he is there as a sort of Hero mercenary.

the samurai was out of place...

if its based around medievil.. i dont like the idea of going through more than one style of warrior (ancient chinese / Japanese / English / elc).

if your gonna mix and match all the different possibilities in one game, it woont work from my mind.

the samurai is there to alter the atmosphere. if i may quote myself, dungeon keeper is supposed to be evil vs. good, not evil vs. europe.

the idea is that all of the elite goodly forces from around the world have gathered at a certain area to make a final stand against evil.

Well I question last stand becausw we ain't planning to finish off the series! :P

Like I said, I'm not looking for a Japanese level, but the idead of mercenary samurais as a desperate bid from a king or queen is no bad idea.

Naturally. Likewise, all others can be either considered as native, or additional summoned aid.

Fact is, many combinations amongst hero groups are not natural - it never makes much sense to have a Giant, Archer and Samurai wandering in a party in search of evil creatures, especially not when there are several of such parties. It seems unnatural to me.

With different subfactions, you provide a rough variety of creatures that could party up without it looking unnatural. In any case, the major themes would be Medieval european and Norse, I think.