Middle Earth: Battle For Arda - Official Thread

[alkexr]

Tweaking colors...

[redrum]

@alkexr Most look good but 2 thoughts:

1. The light blue nation in the NW is too close to the river color.
2. The pink could be toned down a bit more so its less pepto bismal

[alkexr]

@redrum said in Large Middle Earth - official thread:

The pink could be toned down a bit more

Why does everyone hate every color between blue and red?

[Frostion]

@alkexr I love the pink! It is the old historical color of armour units and Panzerwaffe Before pink became girly, it was a manly symbol of power and passion
https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Panzerwaffe

[Cernel]

@redrum said in Large Middle Earth - official thread:

1. The light blue nation in the NW is too close to the river color.

This. I suggest to have the river exactly the same colour as the sea, and some other way tell what is the border between the two (mostly are very intuitive anyways). Like, you can have some wave effect where the river ends.

[Hepps]

A much easier idea is to simply alter the colour of the high elves slightly...

7883B8

[epinikion]

hey guys, i am sorry when i repeat a question bc i cant read the complete chat rigth now.
my 2 cantes:
1)again: great map!
2) i am using MAC and i have complete other design than the pictures here hepp is posting. i still like my mac design but hepps pictures looking ebven better
3) i guess it should be added what player is playing what nation (flaggs beside the players name). when you enter a bot you see names but you dont see who playing what nation
4) i am quite sure programm allows bltzing, as in my current game in the lobby around dol gondur and in my games with ai around rhun and dol gondur too

thy, epi

[Hepps]

@epinikion Yes epi... the new version has a full set of player flags.

[Hepps]

@alkexr and anyone else who is familiar with the game.

I started a little experiment to see if I could make the 2 different charts in the game notes into 1 hoping it would make things clearer.

Let me know whether this clarifies anything or if anyone has any idea how to make it any clearer with the myriad of units and attachments.

[redrum]

@hepps I think you have the right idea. Though it might be better to separate territory related abilities vs AA attack/support type abilities. Also some duplicate information so for example if fortify is always the same bonus amount and territory effect then probably just need the fortify icon in each unit row.

[Hepps]

@redrum Well in the unit Class I wrote Fortify... however the class is actually Fortification so they are not the same ( I just wrote fortifiy because fortification would not fit and I did not want to re edit it all right now).

This chart only deals with abilities and support attachments... the actual terrain effects are not even handled yet. Those are an entirely different set of modifiers all together.

[alkexr]

@hepps I think we should try the other direction, and don't try to pour everything at the user at the same time, and make more, smaller tables instead, if necessary.

The symbols for unit abilities are a bad compromise. The symbol for "4 formation vs cavalry" is not enough for someone learning the map, since he can't decipher from it whether it is a special attack or a support or what. For an experienced player (well, for me at least) wanting to quickly check something the "vs cavalry" part is not necessary and just makes stuff harder to find quickly.

What I would suggest instead is two separate descriptions for each unit. One elaborating every detail - for players who are just learning. Another one with only the minimal amount of information for quick reference. Something like (code stands for symbols):

Full description (not list format):

<unit image here> Spearman

• land unit, 2 movement
• melee melee, infantry infantry (can be targeted by charge charge; power can be reduced by armor armor)
• 2 attack, 4 defense
• 4 formation formation (Before the first battle round when defending, this unit gets a formation formation type special attack with 4 power, targeting units with the charge charge ability. Multiple formation formation type special attacks can't target the same unit, so if there are not enough valid targets, only a part of formation formation attacks will fire.)
• 1 armor armor (This unit reduces the power of an enemy melee melee unit by 1. Multiple armor armor abilities can't affect the same unit, so if there are not enough valid targets, only a part of armor armor abilities will have an effect.)
• garrison garrison (This unit gets +2 defense in a settlement settlement.)

(Now, there's no way I'm gonna do this one by one for each unit, but it shouldn't be too hard to proc.gen.)

And in the quick reference:

<unit image here> Spearman | 2 | 2/4 | 4 formation | (1 armor)(garrison)

Or something like that.

I like the icons for categories, and the image-based approach is probably better than the html table-based one, even if it's harder to edit in case of changes. Having unit images in the table also makes life easier, obviously; all good points there.

[Hepps]

@alkexr To be honest I am trying to learn this map and it is extremely challenging.

[redrum]

@alkexr I actually think full description is overkill as long as the various abilities (formation, armor, garrison) are pretty consistent across units. As long as you have solid definitions of the abilities then really just the tabular format of quick reference should be needed. Otherwise you are just gonna have lots of duplicate text on the full descriptions that no one wants to read. After I read armor for 1 unit, I don't want to read it again just need some quick reference for abilities so if I forget then I can look at it.

[Frostion]

I think the picture and it's visual unit explanations are great and simple. I am very much for simplicity and short descriptions. I think I understand everything shown.

What I would worry about is, not to use too much mapmaker/developer language. Some terms might be self explaining for veterans, but if a new TripleA player, who never join in forum or chat discussions reads "negative support to attack" I am not sure it will be understood, and I guess the phrase is based user person having technical knowledge of how the -1 to enemy attack dice is obtained in the xml. Therefore I would rephrase to something like "-1 to enemy attack dice". But I am not sure if this approach would be appreciated by player's with game mechanisms insight who are maybe used to more nerdy talk

[alkexr]

@frostion said in Large Middle Earth - official thread:

But I am not sure if this approach would be appreciated by player's with game mechanisms insight who are maybe used to more nerdy talk

Have both.

[alkexr]

@hepps Another point. Red and green are used rather inconsistently. Confusing.

[Hepps]

@alkexr Just mixed up 1

[alkexr]

@frostion Although thinking about it... if someone is not familiar with what support is, they should probably try other maps first. It's hard enough to learn for those familiar with every aspect of TripleA.

[Hepps]

Ok so here is one of the things I noticed while trying to translate the charts into one unified chart...

nazgul has 6 unseen, 12 lead, 6 ter & uns

So I assume the first 6 unseen is supposed to be unseen X... which means it has a 6 Attack roll against any enemy unit.

Then it also has Unseen... meaning it is then immune to the the Terror effects of the Bear. (The only Good unit with Terror)

This is highly confusing and this confusing terminology carries through the unit chart.

For clarity reasons I would suggest renaming the following

Unseen... as Defiance
X(xY) Fortification... as Battlements
Siege X(xY)... as Bombard

I think having unique names for everything would dramatically help understanding what is supposed to be going on in the chart.