Middle Earth: Battle For Arda - Official Thread

[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.

[Hepps]

Worked on refining it a little more...

[redrum]

@hepps I think you're are going in the right direction and looks pretty good to me. I think to @Frostion point is having a section in the notes briefly explaining the 'advanced features' (like AA/FS attacks, support, territory effects) for less experienced players would be helpful but that the table should somewhat assume they understand these so that it can be concise and used as a reference.

Only comment on that latest version is I'm not sure the duplication between the key at the top and each row is worth it. I think either going all in on the ability symbol concept or removing it all together would be cleaner. An example would be armor for each unit row could just have the the shield symbol and -1 since the "negative attack to enemy melee" is what the symbol stands for according to the key. Otherwise if the symbol for armor can't convey that well then I don't think its really adding any value. As it sits, the ability symbols and key at the top essentially have no value.

[alkexr]

@hepps Yes, I was going to rename things to resolve ambiguity. Although to respect lore, I would stick with unseen as terror-immunity, and rename the special attack to magic or duel or somesuch. Battlements is a good idea. In the case of siege, I would also rename the unit category, because whatever the fire of orthanc or a battering ram or dragons (units with siege in the upcoming version) do can hardly be called bombardment.

As for territory effects: I'm not really content with the result of the previous rework. I think I will separate territory preference from unit type (so each unit will have a terrain preference type, independent of everything else). What I mean by terrain preference type is "prefer open" (likes plains, like cavalry) or "prefer wilderness" (prefers forests and stuff, dislikes settlements) etc. These can go in the last column then.

[Hepps]

@redrum Except that the armor ability can have differing negative values.

[redrum]

@hepps Right. So each row would just have the shield symbol and the negative value. Essentially remove the "to x1 enemy melee" from each row as that is what the shield symbol means.

[Hepps]

@redrum Yes... I am moving that to the definition right now.

Now I get you.

Some of the info is still in different places as I muddle through which parts are consistent and which parts vary from unit to unit.

[alkexr]

@hepps said in Large Middle Earth - official thread:

which parts are consistent and which parts vary from unit to unit.

Well, only the X or the X(xY) can vary between units, I believe.

Another note, the X(xY) format was confusing for some people. Maybe we should switch to 6 charge (x2) from 6x2 charge; similarly 2 ranged (x2), leadership (x6) etc. But if the x2 is a little black number next to a colored one, like the way you wrote the att/def of the knight, that's fine too I think. Just make sure no one will interpret "+2 for 3 units" as "+3 for 2 units".

[Hepps]

@alkexr Yup. trying to make it a consistent representation over the entire chart.

This is where all the attacks & defenses and their duration should be explicitly stated on every ability.

Like in your original chart...
is X Anti Air for 1 round or all rounds.
is X Flank for 1 round or all rounds.

[Hepps]

I think I attained a nice level of clarity and cohesion...

[Hepps]

The final touch...

Note---- The "Plains" terrain was left at 0 for every unit since I do not know how @alkexr plans to use it or whether he even wants to include it in the game.

[Hepps]

So after examining the chart a few things I had loosely suspected while in my journey to learn this game becomes very apparent.

I made some slight alterations to the chart to underscore some of the terrain effects information that muddles a clear understanding. Since many of the units cannot even enter mountainous terrain I replaced the stated modifier with NA. Seems to make sense since they can neither be placed there nor can they move in there.

Firstly, once you remove all the Mountain Terrain modifiers for all the units that cannot enter Mountains you realize Arnor is severely limited in what it can do against the heart of Angmar, since it has only 1 unit type that can even enter mountains.

Secondly, the Terrain Modifiers for cavalry units are looking pretty bleak on both offense & defense. In almost all terrain types their effectiveness is rendered pretty much impotent even for those with 2 attacks & 2 defenses and a charge ability. Never mind using them to attack Angmar's settlements... unless you need fodder since they are at negatives.

Just some food for thought.