Middle Earth: Battle For Arda - Official Thread

[Ronist]

@mattbarnes I haven't seen Saruman take Tharbad, usually they need everything they have vs Rohan. I'm curious how this strategy has worked out for you or your opponent.

I've seen Goblins take Tharbad early and then fortify it (freefolk don't have siege so they can hold ok) however this means less pressure on lorien and high elves. It put goblins into a long-term defensive position but that was ok.

I've seen freefolk mostly go all-in on south (crossing at Tharbad and flooding goblins/saruman), or north to help contain Angmar and then flood over to the other side of the misty mountains. Going south seemed to work better tbh, but if for some reason wood elves or the northmen are doing poorly sending some units across can help counter.

I've not seen a Gondor/Harad naval arms race though I'm sure it could happen. Harad doesn't really have the income for more than a turn or two of ship production anyways if they want to remain a land threat. It's more that Harad can go full land and work with Mordor for an osgiliath crossing or a fords crossing, while using what ships they have to distract gondor units. Or, spend a bit on ships for a turn or two, then gondor has to pick what they want to defend by sea, then harad can land elsewhere. Gondor's sea front is just too large for them to effectively defend by sea. But really the most effective non-lore strat for gondor has been just to send some of their starting units through dunharrow to help rohan.

[mattbarnes]

The games are not yet complete but I've attached for info. We had played an older version of this map some time ago, so errors were made in early turns of these games as familiarity returned to us. Nevertheless, Saruman to Tharbad and Harad navy were features of both openings (I am Good in one and Evil in the other). MM2.tsvg MM1.tsvg

[mattbarnes]

This Map seems to be unopenable in the latest TripleA version. I've raised a Report through other channels.

[Trevan]

@mattbarnes I see a github issue https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/8076 about this. The problem is that the new edition now will look for valid game xml files in other places than map/games/*.xml. And there is an xml file in this map that it thinks is a game file and is trying to load it and failing at it. So the game engine needs to be fixed but if that xml file can be removed from the game zip, then it would also "fix" it.

[alkexr]

@Trevan @mattbarnes Thanks! If you re-download the map, it should work now.

[alkexr]

I've started working on the next major update. Watch this video dev diary for some of the upcoming changes.

[mattbarnes]

@alkexr Cool. Sounds like a lot of thought is going into the new version.

[alkexr]

You can find the second video about changes to Rohan and Isengard here. You can also find the previous video (and all future videos) in this playlist.

Making these videos is certainly a challenge. Uncomfortable and embarassing at times... but I think I'm going to stick to them. It's a very useful skill to learn nowadays.

Everything you see here is WIP.

[Schulz]

Is there any way to make terrain affects only one side? For example I want mountain territories to give +2 defense to all units but I don't want occupiers to benefit from them when they capture this area.

[Hepps]

@Schulz Yes... but it likely means you will have to make all units nation specific and then tailor the terrain effects to match your desired effects.

[Schulz]

@Hepps Actually I was just trying to mimic territory effect for capitals like giving +1 or +2 extra defense for all defenders in this area.

Is there anything in the codes that might provide this kind of bonuses for the only original owners like capital bonuses? Otherwise seems like all units will have to be specific.

[Hepps]

@Schulz Yes... So each terrain (capital city in this instance) would need to be individual terrains specific to the nation nation in question...

ie. Berlin Capital terrain... then the modifiers would be set up to only give a defensive bonus to German Infantry (or which ever German units you want to receive said bonus).

You would then need to repeat this for all nations setting up their own nation specific terrain and nation specific units

[mattbarnes]

I absolutely love this map. I don't fully understand why you want to develop it further but maybe you will make it better and better?

Why is it listed as "good quality" whereas the other Middle Earth map is "high quality"? I think Battle For Arda is the more sophisticated of the two.

The latest incarnation is great. I particularly like Rafts being buildable on all rivers, as it makes for more dynamic action, to somewhat bypass the bottlenecks.

In one recent game, Good won, with an Eagle-steamroller. I would not like to weaken the eagle unit, but should it be maybe be capped in number?

PS minor typo: Fornost has a "3" on its image, whereas it actually allows 5 units to be produced.

[daneffuller]

@alkexr Please consider making a version with four teams. The four team version is our favorite in my home -- we play it over and over again. Lots of varying strategies and synergies. From my previous posts, the four teams are:

Second Darkness: Dol Guldor, Mordor, Angmar, Orcs
Arkenstone Pact: Dwarves, Woodland Realm, Northmen, Freefolk
Voice Oath: Saruman, Rohan, Ruhn, Harad
Last Alliance: High Elves, Lorien, Arnor, Gondor

I glanced at your dev video. I've never considered the current map to limit gameplay in any way. If you can keep it in the update as an alternative map that can still be played, that would be great.

There appear to be two major gameplay problems people have commented on previously. Rangers are too powerful and Angmar is too weak. Therefore, I suggest making Rangers cost 7. For Angmar to have an option to hold out against an all out coordinated assault, barrow wights could cost 5, but only have a movement of 1.

[alkexr]

@mattbarnes Both the eagle problem and Fornost are on my radar, thanks!

@daneffuller If I were to add it as a map option (like FFA), it wouldn't display the alliances on the stats panel, so I think the best way to go is a separate map XML. But I'm not even sure I'm needed for this. I mean, I believe you can also upload mods of existing maps as a stand-alone downloadable "map", though I'm not entirely sure how. I think that would be the best option - that way you could freely mess with the balance, and I wouldn't have to do the work of maintaining it :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes:

If you can keep it in the update as an alternative map that can still be played, that would be great.

It's unlikely you're alone with this, and I suppose it costs nothing, so why not.

As for the Angmar issue, I think I have a much more radical solution in mind :grinning_face_with_big_eyes:

[alkexr]

Also, I've made some progress with Eriador.

[Cernel]

Shouldn't mountains that are so imposing that most units cannot possibly move into them have virtually no economic value, so having production value equal to 0 (whereas caves would be valuable, of course)?

This way, you could also make mountainous territories more distinctive by giving them to a dummy player that is always allied with everyone (since they would always show the colour set for this player, similarly to having an "impassable" colour).

[shawb]

@alkexr is there any news as to when the next version is going to be ready?

Looking forward to trying the Isengard/Rohan changes.

In regards to feedback when playing with my friends we are finding that for the good guys stacks of rangers seem to be the norm. So some tweak to them (increase in cost/lower stat/limited in number) would probably be worth considering in my opinion?

Overall we love your map though!

[alkexr]

@shawb

is there any news as to when the next version is going to be ready?

Development is progressing very deliberate step by very deliberate step :grinning_face_with_sweat:
In other words, at this rate I might be able to finish an early beta version by the end of summer!
Yeah, I know.

As for rangers, I'm not yet entirely sure what I'm going to do to them, but I'm aware that they are too strong. (It's hard to miss y'all shouting at me! :smirking_face: )

[zlefin]

Starting to get into this map again. It feels a bit wrong that Rivendell is such a rush target. Rivendell seems like a place that should be very hard to take; and be very well defended. Maybe it should get back that Flood defense power it had many versions ago. While taking all the starting forces to try rushing a particular target is always going to be a thing in triplea maps, Rivendell just seems like it should be a bit tougher to take.

Are rivendell changes amongst the changes found in the beta versions of the map?

a weird thing: I'm getting different numbers in battle calc that I can't account for; there's some people playing on a lobby bot, and when I look at their game, if I put hobbit archers defending Tharbad, they get 6 defense per (which is incorrect). Whereas if I run a game in a lobby bot myself, or offline, they get 4 defense per. I can't find any reason for the discrepancy to exist, since the versions of the map are the same. maybe it's yet another thing affected by the bots not being fully updated; but if that were the case then how come there wasn't an issue when I ran a test myself in a different bot?