Middle Earth: Battle For Arda - Official Thread
-
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.
-
Done...
-
And... done....
-
Just an idea for when you implement the Plains terrain...
Might be usable in conjunction with cavalry and/or formation units.
-
hey, again thx for all your work for this beautiful map. I make some noise in the lobby for the map since 2 weeks. more players starting games now.
i have 3 points rigth now:1st) Is it good to let non-mountain units be produced at a mountain? i wonder if its meant this way. E.G. mordor can produce catapult in Durthang
2nd) i think antiairfire all rounds weakens air a lot. When you attack bigger stacks with antiairunits your air better stays at home. I think antiair should be weaker in hit points or dont fire every round.
3rd) there are some differences between the description of a unit and the real ability. E.G. dwarven axethrower..notes say 2/3/3
battlecalc says in a non effect ter. attack is 6. May be i missunderstood, still learning...epi
-
@epinikion said in Large Middle Earth - official thread:
2nd) i think antiairfire all rounds weakens air a lot. When you attack bigger stacks with antiairunits your air better stays at home. I think antiair should be weaker in hit points or dont fire every round.
AA will be made slightly weaker (2 to 3 power for most units instead of 3 to 4). I won't make them much weaker, because if you bring your air units even if your opponent has a large stack of archers, then what is the point of aa fire?
3rd) there are some differences between the description of a unit and the real ability. E.G. dwarven axethrower..notes say 2/3/3
battlecalc says in a non effect ter. attack is 6.Yes, you are right, this is a known bug, already fixed in the latest development version.
-
hey alkexr,
- the sligthly reduced antiairpower sounds fair.
- Will a new download for users be available soon?
- Do you play the map online?
thx, epi
-
@alkexr Ah I noticed several incongruences with the tooltips as well. That is pretty important to correct, as it really doesn't help when you are learning the map.
-
@epinikion said in Large Middle Earth - official thread:
Will a new download for users be available soon?
Yes, very soon.
Do you play the map online?
Haven't yet played it online, but I will definitely want a game or two during the balancing period. Not this month though, I'll be busy.
-
Once the new version is released, I'm glad to get a PBF/PBEM game going with anyone that is interested.
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