Middle Earth: Battle For Arda - Official Thread

[Hepps]

@alkexr Lol!!!! I was waiting to how long it would take for that to come up.

Answer.... not very long.

[alkexr]

@hepps I'm unimpressed by the ability icons. They don't help with seeing what is what.

I don't think there is a shortcut to the steep learning curve here. You just have to learn all the units, or at least the important ones. Or use the tooltpis frequently.

[Hepps]

@alkexr All good. I already have them installed in my version. Truth be told it helps a great deal. You have so many different effects for almost every unit I find it unplayable without them.

I don't know how you produced that image but everything other than the back ground looked blurred. So not sure what you did.

[Hepps]

@alkexr The other thing that probably helped me is that I redid the placements to account for the larger overall unit image size. That way the added abilities icons aren't overlapping each other making a jumble of unit images and icons.

[alkexr]

@hepps Do you have them as unit icons? I see no reason not to include them as an optional feature if one out of five-ish people who have ever given feedback say it "helps a great deal" and I don't have to lift more than a finger. Maybe with better placements there will be less clutter.

I don't know why it looks blurred, I made it with windows snipping tool. Here is the same with map snapshot:

[Hepps]

@alkexr Looks much better the second time through.

I put them in the unit images since the feature did not exist when I did them. But certainly they'd be much better as icons that you could turn on at the start of the game for a real release.

[Cernel]

@alkexr said in Large Middle Earth - official thread:

I don't know why it looks blurred, I made it with windows snipping tool. Here is the same with map snapshot:

Are you using Windows with a general zoom different from 100%?

[Hepps]

So here is a view of how I am doing the fords and river crossings.

Before

After

[alkexr]

@cernel Windows 10, zoomed in as much as possible, TripleA 1.9.0.0.10351

[Cernel]

@alkexr Just wanted to suggest to try it at 100% if it comes out right. I got several cases myself Windows zoom and TripleA don't mix well. Myself I gave up; now I've it at 100% since a while.

[Hepps]

Although this is quite tedious... it is also immensely enjoyable. Almost all of Gondor is now done. But you do not get to gaze on Minas Tirith or Osgiliath just yet.

Here is a look at the coast with just the rivers and terrain layers so far.

IF this is anywhere near as fun to play as it has been to design the reliefs for it... then we are in for a treat!

[alkexr]

Objectives

I'm going to start reworking the objectives soon. There are multiple open questions:

• Some of the objectives are quite random and not too significant, like Dwarves getting +3 PUs for controlling several of their original territories. Are these even necessary? They are just additional rules that the player has to keep in mind, and it feels like the game would not change much without these.
• Some objectives are one-time bonuses, like Saruman getting 12 PUs for taking Helm's Deep. Again, does this make the game more interesting?
• Then there are ones that are quite random, but are also significant, like both Dol Guldur and the Woodland Realm getting +1PUs per controlled Mirkwood territory. This can result in a difference of 26 PUs per turn, which is quite significant.
• Then there are the objectives balancing Rhun and Harad. I'm certain that these are necessary, and I'm also certain @Hepps will figure something out to mark them on the map on those 6 huge territories.
• And finally, there is the objective that tries to counterbalance Tolkien's tendency to give accurate descriptions of "Good" realms and neglecting "Evil" realms. In other words, there are way less Evil cities, so Evil has way less production. It is so bad in fact that without objectives I could only balance it by giving some Evil cities stupid amounts (40-ish) of PUs.

So my suggestion is:

• Scrap the type 1, 2, 3 objectives entirely, and if it seems necessary, balance this by increasing the production of some settlements. Balancing Saruman feels crucial, but they already have as much production as possible, so they will get more initial armies instead. (Also feels fair that Evil gets the initiative.)
• Keep the Rhun and Harad objectives, as per above.
• Most importantly, instead of the objectives giving flat 16 PUs for Orcs, Mordor, Dol Guldur and Angmar, I will introduce a "Creeping Darkness" objective or something like that, which gives them PUs based on TUV destroyed. Something like 10 TUV -> +6 PUs, 20 TUV -> +5 PUs, 30 TUV -> +4 PUs, 40 TUV -> +3 PUs, any additional 10 TUV -> +3 PUs.

Ideas?

[Hepps]

Hi @alkexr , here is the last missing relief.

[redrum]

@alkexr My general advice on objectives is its much better to have fewer unique/meaningful ones than a laundry list of very simple hold these X territories. Generally, objectives can be difficult for players to remember if there are a lot and also can limit the number of options each player has as they pretty much have to go for certain things. For balance, either making some of the non-city evil territories worth more or just giving evil more starting units so they make an initial land grab can be an alternative to needing objectives.

[alkexr]

@redrum Currently Evil starts with 191 production, compared to 304 for Good. You can't balance it with adjusting territory production while staying reasonable. Initial land grab could work, though I have doubts about the prospects of Good if Osgiliath is taken. Anyway, good idea, might be worth a try.

[redrum]

@alkexr Well, you don't necessarily have to buff Mordor and could instead focus on some of the evil players in the central/north of the map like Orcs/Angmar/DolGuldur/Rhun. Most traditional A&A maps probably have a bigger percentage gap between starting income for Axis v Allies than 200 v 300.

[Hepps]

Lots of options.

I do agree with @redrum that very specific NO's tend to just dictate play in a very predictable way.

I have not played this map enough to want to start throwing opinions out on changes... but one of the things I have noticed (while working on the map itself) is that it seems very bland as far as every territory is worth 1 PU unless it is a settlement. Don't know whether possibly dispersing some wealth around the map (outside of settlement territories) could liven things up and give more variety to strategic game play.

Again, just an observation based on designing. The current design may be a focal part of how it is intended to play.

[alkexr]

@hepps It is absolutely intentional. Whether it is good for gameplay remains to be seen. The original idea was (this was many years ago, mind you) that settlements are heavily fortified and hard to take, and taking one should be a major strategic decision / event. At the same time there are a lot of territories for maneuvering and trying to engage in advantageous battles.

But back then I also thought that the more difference between units, the better, and the ensuing territory effect matrix horrors were clearly a flaw in the design, in hindsight.

---

Here is the initial sub-branch for testing the landgrab solution: https://github.com/triplea-maps/large_middle_earth/tree/version-1.3-landgrab

[alkexr]

I might have been a little too overzealous with placing armies there. Good Fast AI got hopelessly wrecked by Evil Fast AI by round 4.

[Hepps]

On an unrelated matter... I tackled the Passes this morning as having them as a Mountain Terrain image (even though they are not a mountain terrain) was problematic to say the least.

Here is a look at Rivendell and its approaches...

Before...

and orgasmic... oops I mean after ...

And yes the images for the Rivendell settlement and the Gladden Fields marshes have yet to be added.