Middle Earth: Battle For Arda - Official Thread

[Hepps]

@alkexr Yes as the designer you know what everything is supposed to do... trying to back engineer this info is quite the undertaking.

[Frostion]

@alkexr As for landing in recently conquered territories, look at Dragon War. Here dragons may land. Take special notice of the player steps.

[redrum]

@alkexr Well here is your first save game for the new beta version: 0_1531889451036_save_LME.tsvg

I only played through the first round playing both sides but overall seems pretty solid (though tough to play without the beautiful unit charts @Hepps is working on as I now very much realize the engine really shows nothing to give any indication on territory effects for each unit). Balance is probably within reason for now and I'd need a few more rounds to really see how far evil can push in a few places. Lots of contentious areas and high movement units which leads to lots of action. Once naval units are added it will get even more crazy as that would open up the map further. Honestly lots of really good stuff already and like the unit variety, territory effects, fortifications vs siege dynamic, and mountain movement restrictions.

Few more minor issues I noticed:

• Emyn Muil -> Dead Marshes connection missing
• White mark on territory border between Pinnath Gelin and West Gondor
• White mark on territory border between North Brown Lands and East Brown Lands
• White mark on territory border between Lower Forest River and Elf Path
• Would be good to add in a PUs image
• Would be good to shrink the player flags in the bottom right corner

Also here is the map.properties I'm using to smooth out the color scheme: 0_1531890096841_map.properties

[Hepps]

@redrum And he gets all three white marks on the first go round.

[redrum]

@hepps Someone has to keep you honest and keep up the expectations of perfection.

[Cernel]

@alkexr Then I would just call it "Middle Earth - The Battle for Arda". I don't think the map name, and even more so the game name, should have any references about how large the map is or is not, or there would be many games starting as "Large" or "Big" (I don't like names like "Big World", either, but at least that one uses exactly v2 or v3 rules in a bigger map; so it makes sense, as it is in direct comparison with Revised, etc.).

Of course, not a big deal.

The suggestion that Eagles and such should not crash to the ground an be destroyer if ending in a territory you just conquered (or liberated) was a general statement that the current TripleA air rules are really bad and silly at representing fantasy flyers, as they are based on the assumption that all flyers need airports to land on. Since it is you that are doing this stuff, you can tell ideally how the fliers should actually work, and, then, we can see if to open a feature request (for supporting bird-like flyers) and how close we can get to it with what you can currently do, using steps, conditions and triggers.

[alkexr]

Large Middle Earth - The Battle For Arda (version 2.0.3)
(Fixed a lot of stuff. Shrunk flags, air units no longer have to land, siege lasts 1 battle round only, tweaked some unit stats. Fortification now prevents charge, flank and trample by default. For full list of changes, visit GitHub.)

Most importantly, we now have awesome tooltips (kudos to @redrum!). For tooltips to be displayed properly, you need at least prerelease 10803. Now you can play knowing the abilities of your units... it certainly is going to be a refreshing experience!

Here is how it works. For targeted attacks and supports, the generated tooltips are used. The things that are appended to it: the type of the unit (melee, infantry, etc.), the abilities unseen and mountaineer (yes, I turned my back on MTG), and territory preferences. For territory preferences, only one keyword is found in the tooltip - a hastily done table in the game notes explains their meaning.

The idea behind territory preferences is that rangers and bowmen are both ranged infantry, but obviously rangers like forests, while bowmen hate it. So instead of using unit type as a base for calculating territory effects, each unit gets a fighting style of some sort. Most cavalry prefer open terrain, especially plains. Levies prefer to fight for their homes near their homes - they like settlements and plains while disliking the wilderness. Some other units prefer wilderness - forests, hills; but this comes at a cost of penalties to fighting in settlements, the opposite of the wilderness. Unyielding units are great at holding positions, while relentless units just keep attacking regardless of how unfavourable the terrain is. Etc. In general, all terrain favours the defender, except plains, which favors the attacker.

Short description of the abilities:

• armor: negative support to melee
• shield: negative support to ranged
• ranged: positive support to melee, attack only
• web: negative support to melee, defense only
• leadership: positive support (siege engines and fortifications are unaffected)
• terror: negative support (unseen units, siege engines and fortifications are unaffected)
• charge: offensive first strike vs infantry
• trample: offensive first strike vs infantry and cavalry
• flank: vs ranged infantry and siege engines
• formation: defensive first strike vs units that "charge"; can't roll more dices than there are valid targets
• siege: offensive first strike vs fortifications, kills instantly regardless of hitpoints
• antiair: defensive vs flying units
• duel: vs other units with "duel", kills instantly regardless of hitpoints
• mountaineer: can enter mountains (flying units can enter mountains too, of course)
• battlements: positive support to infantry AND negative support to non-flying non-siegeengine non-fortification

(Siege engines and fortifications are not considered "combat units", so they are unaffected by most things unless explicitly stated otherwise.)

Stuff not yet adressed:

• Halloween witches
• Game name
• Game notes
• Some unpolished unit images
• Move before or after purchase?
• Sea units
• placement picking
• balancing, balancing, balancing

PS. It's so awesome that the procedural tooltip generation knows LotR lore!

Or how else could it possibly know the name of the wizard? ;D

[Cernel]

@alkexr

Move before or after purchase?

You can have both, actually. Look at my WWIIv3 Move-Buy-Move in WWIIv3 Variants. Not necessarily advising it: probably better just before. But you can experiment that way and behold yourself that almost all movement will be made before (just speculating).

[redrum]

@alkexr Looking like some great updates! On remaining items, I'd vote for purchase after move.

[Cernel]

@alkexr Any input on how to address the flier issue? It makes some sense that an aeroplane cannot land in conquered territories, but it really makes no sense that an eagle cannot.

[Cernel]

@cernel In my opinion, games with flyers or helicopters are in need of a property allowing to land on any friendly territories, no matter if newly conquered. I also guess it should be something easy to do, as the matter would be just to ignore a check or something?

EDIT: Probably the best, rather than a property, would be having a unit option for allowing landing in newly acquired (conquered or liberated on the same turn) territories, in case a game wants to have, like, aeroplanes and helicopters.

However, as now, you can totally disable the crashing for planes. So you could do that and detail in notes what rules are supposed to apply for air, making it self-enforced.

[alkexr]

@cernel in the latest version flying units can end their turn wherever they like. They still can't conquer territories alone: it isn't supported by engine, and I won't ever include player enforced rules in any of my maps.

[Cernel]

@alkexr Well, this is surely better than dragons needing airports to land.
An alternative to user enforced, is trigger enforced. For example, you tell in notes that air cannot stay on water, and make a set of triggers to remove air units on water, preferably also with a set of notifications telling the players when they lost some flyers.

[Cernel]

@alkexr said in Large Middle Earth - official thread:

They still can't conquer territories alone: it isn't supported by engine

Theorically you could make a set of triggers that conquer the territories if attacking units are left and the territory is enemy owned. I don't know if that would take into account liberation, tho (if it doesn't, more triggers would be needed).

[Cernel]

@alkexr It would be good if you format the zip correctly, meaning:

1. Having it not double folder, but with the "map" as the first subfolder.
2. Having it called just "large_middle_earth".

Mostly because it's already hard enough to get regular users to manual install; without having to unzip, cut/paste and rename folders around... Failed to get a game going in lobby with a regular because of the above (he gave up).

[alkexr]

@cernel Everything is going to be fine once it is released in-game. Till then you have to deal with the way GitHub packages stuff.

Btw, having arrived home from the last vacation, I'll have more time for development once again. I hope it will be downloadable ingame before long.

[TheDog]

@alkexr
I would like to help with balancing your game, are you at this stage?

Some of your units need their PUs reviewing, but Im sure you know that.

Thanks to you and all who have brought it this far, it looks and feels awesome.

I did the coding and balancing for The Tyranids for the Original Dawn of War, so Im used to the repetitive cycle of testing.

[alkexr]

@thedog said in Large Middle Earth - official thread:

I would like to help with balancing your game, are you at this stage?

A couple of unit images need a facelift, sea units need to be added, placements picked (all in progress), and game notes written. After that, it's balancing time! (i.e. playing a ton of PBF with everyone, I suppose... I've never done serious balancing before)

Some of your units need their PUs reviewing, but Im sure you know that.

They looked good when I set them. When I started games, they didn't Turns out that the value of the unit is not only determined by it's effectiveness in large battles (yeah, I know, obvious... in hindsight).

But I'm curious. Which units do you think are too cheap/too expensive?

Actually, the unit cost/stat balancing can start right away; everything relevant about them is done.

[Cernel]

@thedog Looks like you are in the right place. Most TripleA maps have never been seriously balanced (NWO etc. are few major exceptions, and that doesn't even comprise a good half of the high quality ones, like WAW and TRS).

[TheDog]

@alkexr
My caveat, Im no expert at Triplea balancing and have come up with my own formula, it maybe naive, but here it is. It is based on spending about 100 TUV a side in the Battle Calculator and includes movement.

(Attack + Defence + Movement - Average_infantry_movement + Fudge_Factor) x Hit_Factor

Average infantry movement on your map is 2, so its a constant of -2.
Giving most infantry a movement cost of 0pu, a unit moving 3 costs 1pu, flying move of 5 gives 3pu.

Where Fudge_Factor also includes personal tastes/goals.

On your map its focus is a land battle so Air & sea units are +1

Most units have a bonus of some sort, gives or receives support, so this is the norm, where a unit does not have a bonus then -1, eg. bat, balchoth_tribesman, trollman, raven all have -1.

Play testing will increase or decrease the Fudge Factor.

As your map has terrain this adds a whole level of complexity that is is difficult to account for, so Im ignoring it.

For units with 1 Hit, the above is fine.
For 2 Hits x by 1.5
For 3 Hits x by 2
Modified by how they are repaired. These hit values are probably lower than most other mods, one reason is the AI does not try to protect its 2+ hit units and the other for players they are rarely cost effective.

The above 2+ hit modifiers would be higher say for ship units as there is fewer units in a battle and so hits are worth more.

To your question, "But I'm curious. Which units do you think are too cheap/too expensive?"
ent 7 5 2 with 2 hits (7+5+2-2=12) x 1.5 = 18 your value 24
bear 7 5 3 with 2 hits (7+5+3-2=13) x 1.5 = 20 your value 16
warg_rider 5 2 4 (5+2+4-2=9) x 1 = 9 your value 6

There are more units but you have my base formula what do you think?

As an aside here is worked example of a bat unit to show how the points build up. Flying units are really hard to balance as only a humans can really exploit their capabilities. There is a no bonus because it has no bonuses against ground units.
bat 6 2 4, flying +1, no ground bonuses -1, (6+2+4-2+1-1=10)

@Cernel
Thanks!