Middle Earth: Battle For Arda - Official Thread
-
Just to get some feed-back... I went back and redid Arnor with all the finishing touches.
Please weight in on anything you want to see or want to see changed before @alkexr finishes the changes to terrain and unit rosters.
-
Hepps - you say Cavalry look underpowered. However I've found that in non-mountain areas their Charge and Flank bonuses are very effective. In one PvP game, a mass of Wargs could move around blitzing everything. Even with a large target, a strafing attack with Charge can double the one-round damage. Flank rips-apart any archer-heavy stacks. But you're right that in the north, Arnor get little benefit from cavalry against Cave/Mountain-based Angmar.
In my second PvP on this map, I toggled the option that prevents Charge/Flank against fortifications. This was crucial to prevent the Evil cavalry being overpowered.
Alexr - the game currently prevents new Fortification building. These are expensive and would be rarely built but could be tactically crucial some time to defend against cavalry stacks. Can you add this capability?
Alexr - where is your thinking about Siege units? I love the dynamic of strong settlements, surrounding them, and needing specialist units to break them. However, I have struggled to make use of them due to their speed. In my PvP, I have had to make dwarf siege units in turn 1 and then march them for 8 or more turns to get them to join Arnor in attacking Carn Durn. I narrowly achieved this but by then time is starting to run-out on other fronts. In the south, as Mordor, I've been able to deploy catapults against Osgilliath, which is good. However, in other theatres, no-one seems to be able to build siege engines or at least get them to the right places, so the dynamic is relatively limited.
Alexr - I saw the debate about Unseen power. This is the feature I've struggled most to bear in mind or effectively use in the game. It's not very effective as Terror-immunity as there are usually other units in a stack for Terror to work against in any case. So the main effect is to add randomness to big battles as the Unseen units get extra hits on each other.
-
@mattbarnes Yup on open plains I can see where they'd have some value... and when I did the Angmar chart I also noted just how valuable the Wargs were. All great points.
-
If anything, Formation isn't powerful enough. If I invest in Formation troops I want them to effectively dissuade a Charge but their effect is weaker. Maybe it's because you only get one Formation roll per attacker, so two 6Charge units get a roll at 12 together and three 4Formation defenders only roll 8 together. I get the logic (the third defender isn't charged) but in reality well-formed infantry should be relatively impervious to charges so maybe need higher Formation values?
-
@mattbarnes said in Large Middle Earth - official thread:
Hepps - you say Cavalry look underpowered. However I've found that in non-mountain areas their Charge and Flank bonuses are very effective. In one PvP game, a mass of Wargs could move around blitzing everything. Even with a large target, a strafing attack with Charge can double the one-round damage. Flank rips-apart any archer-heavy stacks. But you're right that in the north, Arnor get little benefit from cavalry against Cave/Mountain-based Angmar.
Yes, wargs were overpowered, especially for 6PUs.
Alexr - the game currently prevents new Fortification building. These are expensive and would be rarely built but could be tactically crucial some time to defend against cavalry stacks. Can you add this capability?
I detailed changes to fortifications in this post.
Alexr - where is your thinking about Siege units? I love the dynamic of strong settlements, surrounding them, and needing specialist units to break them. However, I have struggled to make use of them due to their speed. In my PvP, I have had to make dwarf siege units in turn 1 and then march them for 8 or more turns to get them to join Arnor in attacking Carn Durn. I narrowly achieved this but by then time is starting to run-out on other fronts. In the south, as Mordor, I've been able to deploy catapults against Osgilliath, which is good. However, in other theatres, no-one seems to be able to build siege engines or at least get them to the right places, so the dynamic is relatively limited.
All units will have at least 2 movement.
Alexr - I saw the debate about Unseen power. This is the feature I've struggled most to bear in mind or effectively use in the game. It's not very effective as Terror-immunity as there are usually other units in a stack for Terror to work against in any case. So the main effect is to add randomness to big battles as the Unseen units get extra hits on each other.
All Elves have unseen, so their stacks will be mostly immune. In the lore Elves existed in both the seen and unseen realms, and so they did not fear wraiths or the nazgul. This is just a not-so-important ability to add more depth.
An entirely different ability that had the misfortune of being given the exact same name is a special attack. That is intended to reflect that whenever two Maiar/other powerful beings met on the battlefield in LotR, they almost always faced each other in some sort of duel (Gandalf vs The Nine at Amon Sul, Gandalf vs Durin's Bane in Moria, Gandalf vs the Witch-King at Minas Tirith).
I'm not sure the terror-immunity adds too much to the game other than being a refeerence to the lore, but the special attack makes you be more cautious when engaging in masive battles.
-
@mattbarnes said in Large Middle Earth - official thread:
If anything, Formation isn't powerful enough. If I invest in Formation troops I want them to effectively dissuade a Charge but their effect is weaker. Maybe it's because you only get one Formation roll per attacker, so two 6Charge units get a roll at 12 together and three 4Formation defenders only roll 8 together. I get the logic (the third defender isn't charged) but in reality well-formed infantry should be relatively impervious to charges so maybe need higher Formation values?
As you can clearly see in the movies, in Middle Earth spears aren't worth s*** against cavalry charge. (And at Helm's Deep you can also clearly see that the cavalry of Rohan can enter mountains.)
Anyway... only chariots have 6x2 charge, which is a very extreme case. But even then, 1 chariot kills 1 infantry fodder on average, which is about 4 PUs of damage. 1 spearman kills 1/3 chariot on average, which is about 3.66 PUs worth of damage. Better units with formation (like dwarven phalangites) cause 5.5 PUs damage on average. Any other cavalry with less charge (like lancers with 4x2) only cause 2.66 PUs of damage on average, although against lancers spears and pikes have less expected value (2.33 PUs and 4 PUs, respectively), because lancers are cheaper.
So spears do not completely counter charging units, but they definitely take away their advantage. And you don't have to invest heavily in units with formation, since they are usually quite cost-effective even if they never ever use their formation. (So a spearman without formation would still cost the same, or maybe 0.5 PUs less).
-
Wargs ceased to be overpowered when the option was set to prevent Charge in the presence of fortifications. They were much less used in my second game. I wouldn't necessarily change them.
I like the idea of the Maiar duel. That said, this does make them much more mortal early in the battle. An early kill is likely and this can swing the battle due to the loss of Leadership. Whereas in the Lore the duels could last ages and would almost be continuing in parallel with the wider battle rather than as part of it. Somehow, if practical, I'd want the Maiar attacks to have to accumulate some number of hits before the duel can end (or simply not have a roll till round 3 say). Part of the problem may be that the Wizards are only 1 HP, so can easily die in round 1 from an Unseen attack.
BTW, should the Wizard units be renamed per those key characters to add more to that vibe? And is it right that more Wizards can be built? In my current PvP, Isengard has three Wizards for example: they are a good force multiplier. Maybe Wizards should be made more expensive but higher HP, which could address both observations.
PS are Eagles over-powered? They are getting spammed in my games and they can fly so far. Way more effective than Winged Nazgul.
-
@alkexr Good answer about formation - you've clearly thought that through well. You're right about Rohirrim charging Orks: the Orks are a rabble with low morale so do not stand firm like drilled troops. In the charge at Helm's Deep, they break because of Gandalf's bright staff effect so they lose formation. In the fields before Minas Tirith, they simply break in fear before the charge even reaches them.
-
@mattbarnes said in Large Middle Earth - official thread:
Somehow, if practical, I'd want the Maiar attacks to have to accumulate some number of hits before the duel can end (or simply not have a roll till round 3 say).
Not possible with the current engine.
Part of the problem may be that the Wizards are only 1 HP, so can easily die in round 1 from an Unseen attack.
Unseen attack kills the target instantly regardless of hitpoints.
BTW, should the Wizard units be renamed per those key characters to add more to that vibe? And is it right that more Wizards can be built? In my current PvP, Isengard has three Wizards for example: they are a good force multiplier. Maybe Wizards should be made more expensive but higher HP, which could address both observations.
There will be a map option called "Buildable unique units" or something, which will govern if wizards, balrogs, nazgul, oathbreakers etc. can be purchased. I won't rename the units, since it would be terribly weird to have 3 Sarumans.
PS are Eagles over-powered? They are getting spammed in my games and they can fly so far. Way more effective than Winged Nazgul.
Way more effective in small battles. Nazgul were meant to be used as leaders of massive armies, and I think they are quite effective at that. But I will take this into account when redesigning Eagles.
"For the world is changing: I feel it in the water, I feel it in the earth, and I smell it in the air."
-
In my game, the Eagles are flying around in a group of 4-8 units, so are not so limited to small battles. They can completely ruin any reinforcement trail feeding the front line. Maybe the number needs to be capped?
Interesting about Unseen attacks being instant kill. I hadn't clocked that. But if Charge applies only in round one, why cannot Unseen be made only to apply in round three?
Flying Nazgul leading big armies does not work I'm afraid. Because of anti-air units, the Flying Nazgul quickly become vulnerable against stacks with adequate archer units. You almost need a "dismount option" to apply in big battles, while retaining flight for other purposes.
PS it may be due to the engine rather than your map, but can the Calculator be changed to allow damaged units to be selected? Currently I can't accurately model the scenario of "I attack with one army, then with another" where 2HP units will have been damaged in the first.
-
@alkexr For the High Elves the Eagles may also get spammed simply because there are so few purchase options with them. The Eagles are a fairly straight forward buy if you have stopped stockpiling Archers and Rangers.
-
Quick question about siege units, if they are now to be two-move. Is it possible in the engine to say that they can move one and attack, or move two, but not move two into an attack? It would be fair and realistic to force them to arrive adjacent to the target a turn before they can attack it, to allow a sally-out against them (if the defenders are numerous enough).
-
Love all the discussion.
One thing that does feel odd if staying true to the lore... spamming and unlimited purchasing of some of these very unique units seems odd... Wizards, Barlogs, Dragons, Nasguls, Ents...
Don't know. Part of me says it would limit playability from some standpoint... part of me says it would be neat to see them as a special opportunity buy... not sure just throwing it out there.
-
@mattbarnes said in Large Middle Earth - official thread:
Is it possible in the engine to say that they can move one and attack, or move two, but not move two into an attack?
No.
Wizards, Barlogs, Dragons, Nasguls, Ents...
Not Dragons or Ents. There were plentry of dragons left even well into the Fourth Age, though not as large as Smaug and mostly cold-drakes (not capable of breathing fire). But it is realistic that Angmar can "recruit" more dragons from those roaming the Northern Waste and the Whithered Heath. Although, strictly speaking, dragons did not serve Angmar, to my knowledge, but creating a separate small player for dragons would be odd. (Same reason why Fangorn belongs to Lórien.) There were also way more ents than those that participated in the Last March, at least that's what I think. It is plausible that over time, the "sleeping" or "treeish" ones could be awoken.
"For the world is changing: I feel it in the water, I feel it in the earth, and I smell it in the air."
-
@alkexr You could force siege weapons to only have 1 move during combat and 2 moves during non combat.
-
Not Dragons or Ents. There were plentry of dragons left even well into the Fourth Age, though not as large as Smaug and mostly cold-drakes (not capable of breathing fire). But it is realistic that Angmar can "recruit" more dragons from those roaming the Northern Waste and the Whithered Heath. Although, strictly speaking, dragons did not serve Angmar, to my knowledge, but creating a separate small player for dragons would be odd. (Same reason why Fangorn belongs to Lórien.) There were also way more ents than those that participated in the Last March, at least that's what I think. It is plausible that over time, the "sleeping" or "treeish" ones could be awoken.
As I said... I am not saying they would/should be completely removed from being purchased... just saying that it feels odd to be able to purchase as many as you want whenever you want. Could be kinda cool if certain "special" unit types had some governing system(s) to make them more valuable to each nation that can produce them.
Again just throwing ideas out. I find that the dynamics you have going on here are awesome! Especially with you adding new units with more flare and eliminating some of the current "filler" units.
-
Done most of the charts setup...
-
Oh and I took the liberty of getting ahead of the curve by adding...
Armour...
I renamed the existing one to...
Shield...
As I believe you intended for the two to be separate.
I have integrated it into the chart and I add the desription once I know how the ability works.
@alkexr If you are adding any other new offensive or Defensive Abilities... can you let me know. That way I can start on developing new images and integrating them into the charts ASAP.
-
@hepps I've thought about adding trample - similar to charge, except it can target cavalry as well, and trampling units are not affected by formation. (Like, I have doubts about the effectiveness of spearmen against an oliphaunt.) The units in question are oliphaunts, the olog-hai trolls and potentially bears (the descriptions of Beorn and his kin are vague and likely poetic, and it is not clear just how big of a bear they could skin-change into - in fact, not even their skin-changing ability is established beyond doubt).
But then, I'm not sure this would add too much depth to the strategy. Do you think it is a good idea?
Fortresses have a (yet unnamed) ability - when hitpoints damaged, they change into themselves, except they lose the damage. Essentially, they absorb one damage every combat round.
Also, instead of having a column for hitpoints, two-hit and three-hit properties could be turned into abilities (something like massive and enormous - or any two of the infinite choice of English adjectives meaning very large and very very large). But maybe showing their damaged versions is enough to convey this information as well.
The fire of Orthanc is a suicide unit, that needs an icon too.
-
@alkexr Trample would be cool. Would add some dimension to the larger units and seems quite accurate to how they would behave.
Not really sure of the rationale for a fortress healing every round of combat... seems really odd. Seems like it would make more sense if it could negate a single siege attack per combat round. ie... negative support to one siege attack.
Yup. Will add the Orthanac suicide icon.
There are still a few things missing from the charts aswell. Like also the instant kill for the Unseen attack. I am not sweating the details until I see your complete revisions, at which point you will have to proof read the entire bunch to ensure I got it all right.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login