Middle Earth: Battle For Arda - Official Thread

[mattbarnes]

Hey, this is a beautiful and fun map. Just coming back to it after a break and all the latest developments. We are only one round in so far. A few queries/comments:

• is it intended that Gondor can make new oathbreakers?
• is it better to default to “repair at start of turn” so injured units stay vulnerable for a little bit?
• will it be tempting to Gondor to focus on naval initially to overwhelm Harad ships rather than allow a slow naval race?
• are anti air a bit too effective against winged nazgul? Should the nazgul be allowed to ‘dismount’ somehow to avoid being slaughter quickly in the air?
• are siege units a bit too effective against walls?
• is it a bit too easy to clumsily lose a siege unit in a minor skirmish against a unit with Flank? (Eg Saruman takes Fire of Orthanc with the army to raid West March and the Fire gets killed in an otherwise one-sided battle)

That’s all for now!

[alkexr]

@mattbarnes said in Middle Earth: Battle For Arda - Official Thread:

is it intended that Gondor can make new oathbreakers?

There is a map option named Unlimited Unique Units which governs if oathbreakers, wizards, nazgul, winged nazgul and balrogs are purchaseable. (Game notes incorrectly states that it's off by default.)

is it better to default to “repair at start of turn” so injured units stay vulnerable for a little bit?

I don't know. I think generally there isn't a lot of difference.

will it be tempting to Gondor to focus on naval initially to overwhelm Harad ships rather than allow a slow naval race?

In my experience it's very tempting for Gondor to try to not die. If it comes to Gondor launching attacks against Harad, then the game is long over already. Naval defense isn't worth it, because Haradrim naval invasions are a mild annoyance at worst (this needs to change though).

are anti air a bit too effective against winged nazgul? Should the nazgul be allowed to ‘dismount’ somehow to avoid being slaughter quickly in the air?

Well, that's kind of the point of anti air. Winged nazgul aren't meant to be all-powerful. But Gondor needs to invest big in rangers to have any chance at shooting them down.

are siege units a bit too effective against walls?

Not really. I remember concluding after having played around with the battle calculator that siege units are not all that much more cost-effective for sieges than other units. They are somewhat stronger, but that's made up for by not being useful for anything else.

is it a bit too easy to clumsily lose a siege unit in a minor skirmish against a unit with Flank? (Eg Saruman takes Fire of Orthanc with the army to raid West March and the Fire gets killed in an otherwise one-sided battle)

There is no point in putting a siege unit on the frontline. Keep it behind until you attack the walls, they have enough movement. And there is especially no point in bringing it to a non-siege battle, because it's a suicide unit.

[mattbarnes]

@alkexr ok got it; will turn off unlimited uniques.

Btw are eagles unique? I think High Elves will be tempted to spam the eagles.

Btw the game notes and unit comments are confusing about non-sea naval units. “Placement restriction” doesn’t fully convey “can’t go to sea”. At least it confused my father in law.

Is the battle calculator fully correct? It seems to give generous results to siege units vs walls. Like if you have a 50% shot it seems to assume a definite kill. Or am I mistaken?

[alkexr]

@mattbarnes said in Middle Earth: Battle For Arda - Official Thread:

Btw are eagles unique? I think High Elves will be tempted to spam the eagles.

Balrogs and Wizards are Maiar - they were created before the world, and you couldn't possibly get more. There were only ever 9 nazgul, with no way of making more. Oathbreakers broke an oath, you can't just force your recruits to break an oath, curse them with forgotten magic, wait for them to die and then call on them a thousand years later.

As for eagles, ents, dragons etc., there were plenty of them, at least enough that the pool of potential new recruits wouldn't really deplete.

If eagle spam is too tempting (which I agree it is), that only means that they are too cheap.

Btw the game notes and unit comments are confusing about non-sea naval units. “Placement restriction” doesn’t fully convey “can’t go to sea”. At least it confused my father in law.

It's in the game notes:

Sea-going naval units (dromunds and black ships) can enter both seas and major rivers, while rivercraft can only enter (and be placed on) the latter. The Belegaer, the ocean is entirely impassable to units.

I don't have complete control over how placement / movement restrictions are displayed in the tooltips, but I can add a line for sure.

Is the battle calculator fully correct? It seems to give generous results to siege units vs walls. Like if you have a 50% shot it seems to assume a definite kill. Or am I mistaken?

Siege attack hits destroy units instantly, even if they have multiple hitpoints. I think that's where the confusion comes from.

[mattbarnes]

BTW, I love all the units and the map is beautiful but I was just amused when I imagined Saruman’s halforc playing snooker. See what I mean?

[Hepps]

@mattbarnes LMFAO!!! I hadn't even seen it til you mentioned it!

Just for fun... a new unit... the snooker siege unit.

[Hepps]

@Hepps It is an effective unit... depending on your angle of attack!

[mattbarnes]

Ah, I still seem to be able to make wizards for Saruman (and dragons for angmar etc) with Unlimited Uniques set to off. Is this wrong or have I done something awry?

[alkexr]

@mattbarnes I can't replicate it, I can't produce wizard as Saruman. Can you send a savegame?

There were plenty of dragons living around the Withered Heath and Forodwaith, albiet not as big as Smaug. They even fought a war against the Dwarves of the Ered Mithrin, so their numbers don't appear to have had a hard cap.

[mattbarnes]

@Hepps that’s a great new unit. Will it be “relentless” ... because it has a lot of balls?!

[alkexr]

@mattbarnes And it will have legs as support attachments.

[Cernel]

I'm curious what is the assumed dynamics by which you can produce Ents? Weren't they unable to reproduce? If realistically you should not be able to do it, and it is just for gameplay/fun, can a list be made of all major lore-inconsistent game items (at default options), if any? I want to point out I don't know much about the scenario.

Also, the notes say that "Unlimited Unique Units" is default off. But actually it is default on.

I'm not really a player of this game, but I would suggest the default options to maximize adherence to the lore (this would be my preference).

This map makes me wish that there would be a time setting for the board tooltips to appear and that the customized ones would actually show up on the board and in all cases (this might be a bug).

By the way, traditionally the "Experimental" is just the section for all those maps we are not so proud to show up. I don't see why this is not in Quality, already.

[Cernel]

@alkexr Another thing I wondered, since in this game (as well as the other Middle Earth one) the Freefolks power ends up conquering a lot of neutrals, is it in the spirit of the lore that Freefolks, or any other "Good" powers, attack neutral territories? I wonder because that is something that doesn't sound like a good thing to do, deliberately attacking someone that is minding his own business. Would it be more realistic for "Good" powers to be somewhat inhibited, if not outright impeded, from attacking Neutral territories?

[Captain Crunch]

@Cernel interesting question although aren't "free folk" usually rebel immoral liberals who do whatever to be "free" amiright

[mattbarnes]

I am not the game designer but my rationalisation of the Ent question is that they are not breeding new Ents, just expending effort on waking dozy Ents or mobilising then towards the war. I don’t think this is contrary to lore and indeed I recall the Ents of lore were very reluctant to get involved.

Similarly, when the Freefolk ‘attack’ neutrals, the game mechanic implies conflict but one could rationalise it as a proxy for sending diplomats, recruiters and trainers to encourage the neutrals to join the good fight and contribute their resources. The ‘destruction’ of the neutral army may be a proxy for wearing down their reluctance. I don’t think it detracts from the scenario.

For anyone interested, I just completed a pair of games with my father in law (each playing good in one). Does it help the designers to see game files by way of play test feedback? We thoroughly enjoyed the games and detected no major flaws. (Bar Saruman’s snooker players!)

[redrum]

@mattbarnes Generally, it is helpful to have some completed save games and that was @alkexr initial goal was to play a bunch himself. So attaching or linking to them here would be good.

[mattbarnes]

@redrum here you go M&M2.tsvg M&M1.tsvg

[Dany]

@alkexr Hello,

Great map sir! Myself (Dany) and Epinikion have had 6 games so far and we find that the balanced is achievable, we prefer dice so far too make every dice count, for example Air units can be vulnerable too multiple arches, and straff are never really safe. Different strategies for the map from both sides, and it allows a lot of give and take possibilities, that both sides can adapt. Epinikion and I have played a lot of games over the years, mostly vs each other and at a high level, and since this map we don't want to go back too another map. So far the good side is easier too play, but evil sure has a lot of possibilities. I don't think the map needs much change, i hope players can adjust to difficulty level by adding a bid. So far we have not reached a decision on if a bid is necessary. Thanks for your work. Best dice map!

• I fear that special attacks in LL make the game too predictable

[redrum]

@Dany @epinikion One thing that could be helpful for assisting new players on the map is creating a small strategy guide as part of the notes or here on the forum.

[alkexr]

@mattbarnes Thanks for the savegames! They show some interesting strategies that I haven't so far seen played out. From a quick glance it seems that the first game was decided by Isengard stretching their forces too thin and a well-planned Last March of the Ents. The second one was over when Good missed a canopener and the forces of Gondor were more or less annihilated at Pelennor Fields.

I also had a look at your choices of units. A wide variety of units were employed, with powerful units (like eagles and dragons) not being ignored but also not spammed. Some units, however (notably the cavalry of Rohan and one-hit air units) weren't appreciated by the two of you, and this could indicate a power-level problem if more save-games showed the same pattern. (And this is one of the reasons why save-games are so useful for balancing. @Dany @epinikion I'd most certainly welcome 6 save-games from players who have that much experience with the map!)

What I still haven't seen yet is a Harad naval invasion that could be called succesful (although the mental image of oliphaunts crossing the river on rafts made my day). The "Saruman goes north" is another strategy that looks difficult to impossible to pull off, as reinforced by these games.