Middle Earth: Battle For Arda - Official Thread

[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?

[alkexr]

@zlefin Here, have this! Although I reckon this will raise more questions than it answers...

As for the battle calculator thing, you should probably ask @LaFayette, I don't think the issue is map-related.

[pact_of_plastic]

Are there any larger mirrored maps? I.E. both sides look exactly the same, have the same units (like in chess or checkers)?

[alkexr]

A quick update on the upcoming version

• There is a new player, the Orc Holds of the Misty Mountains (the original Orcs player will go by the name Moria)
• River crossings have new unique mechanics
• Tharbad is now owned by Arnor

More details in this five-minute video.

[zlefin]

Tharbad owned by Arnor? that sounds like a very significant shakeup. As do the other changes; and I haven't even learned the current version that much yet I look forward to seeing them and pondering what these changes will bring. Bunch of big theater changing stuff.

[Goatenstein]

The update looks cool. Hopefully this will make the northwest a little more interesting.
When you're done with the update, I'd love to help with playtesting.

[alkexr]

Another quick update on the upcoming version

• Map changes around Moria, the Mirkwood and Cair Andros, including two new settlements
• Lórien and the Woodland Realm merged into a new Silvan Elves player

More in this video.

[Cernel]

Maybe you should leave the current one as it is and make these changes into a second edition, meaning a new map. I think these are more changes than going from WW2 Classic to Revised, and adding Revised didn't cause the Classic map to be overwritten. It may be still good then to remove the first edition from download list.

[rsnorunt]

Love the new Mirkwood changes! Hopefully the additional distance will give Dol Guldor some time to grow and consolidate before the elves and northmen hem them in. And I think it'll open up some interesting strategic decisions for the Sylvan player about which of the 4 theaters they should devote their forces (Saruman, Moria, Dol Guldor, and Angmar/Gundabad). Not really sure what you mean about the woodland realm being weak. They honestly feel quite strong compared to Dol Guldor in the current edition. This is the turn 1 I've been using recently

Dol guldor has to choose between east mirkwood and the narrows, since they can't hold back the northman counter attack in both places, and that leaves them open to a can-open into west mirkwood. It's hard to see Dol Guldor reaching Eryn Galen or Greenwood the Great before turn 3-4, especially if the Northmen send a raider or two to the Bight and or Anduin Bank/Wilderland every turn. And by then the PU discrepancy seems too great to overcome.

A little worried about the new Moria player losing access to goblins. Gameplaywise it seems difficult to hold territory in Lorien without levy troops on the rivers, and lorewise orcs and goblins are the same (and the movies/other media have goblins in Moria). But I love the change to the Methedras/Nimrodel area, and the 2-space Drimril Dale. It lets Lorien and Fangorn interact much more easily, but it also stops the ents from terrorizing the mountains between moria and isengard as effectively.

I'm a fan to the changes around Dale and Esgaroth, it makes them more distinct as settlements (and makes esgaroth more defensible), but also allows Rhun to potentially unite the forces on either side of the Celduin before they have enough trebuchets to take a city. I'm a little worried about the changes to Ered Mithrin though. I feel like a big part of the early Angmar game is figuring out how to consolidate your dragons without the dwarves killing them. By splitting up the withered heath, this seems harder, though I guess this is offset by erebor no longer bordering the withered heath. I'm also a fan of connecting the grey mountains to west forodwaith rather than the west grey mountains to forodwaith.

Have you looked at Rhun/Rhovanion yet? I feel like an extra settlement for Rhun in the Balchoth lands or southwestern Rhovanion could be cool, and allow Rhun to play much more dynamically on the west bank of the Celduin / the brown lands / can-open more easily for Dol Guldor. Also I definitely feel that the restriction to 8 production hits Rhun much harder than other players, though I could see it happening to Moria or Angmar in the new version.

Also, have you figured out a new turn order? I feel like combining Lorien and the Woodland Realms, adding Gundabad, making Rivendell less useless early game, and giving Tharbad to Arnor all have pretty massive can-opening potential. Most of the theaters of war have multiple players, and many of the players participate in several far-away theatres, so I feel like turn order and map design probably need to happen together.

[rsnorunt]

So I've been thinking about it, and my proposed turn order is:

Saruman, Angmar, Mordor
Arnor, Gondor, Sylvan
Harad, Dol Guldor, Gundabad
Northmen, Rohan
Moria, Rhun
Freefolk, Rivendell, Dwarves

I feel like this preserves a lot of the dynamics from current version, but gives evil a bit more initiative in turn 1, mostly at the expense of the Northmen and Rivendell. I tried to keep most of the can opens "less optimal" like they currently are (no cracking the walls of Osgiliath and letting the Oliphants trample through), but I might have gotten some wrong, esp with your planned new units. You're the designer and of course you know what's best, so feel free to take or ignore.

The turn order in each theater of war are below. Minor players are in parentheses.

Celduin: (Angmar), (Dol Guldor), Northmen, Rhun, Dwarves

• Same order as before, (Rhun still can opens for Dol Guldor against Northmen, and angmar can still potentially breach dwarven cities for Rhun, though this is often not feasible).

Mirkwood: Sylvan, Dol Guldor, Northmen, (Rhun)

• Dol Guldor now gains some much needed initiative in turn 1, but it's otherwise the same order

North Mountains: Angmar, Gundabad, Northmen, (Rivendell), Dwarves

• Angmar goes directly before gundabad, so can can-open or potentially breach fortresses for them, but at the same time, Carn Dum is pretty far so Angmar probably won't have a ton of troops. Rivendell is far enough from the Dwarves that they probably can't can-open too much, and the northmen don't have enough mountaineers to do too much damage, but this is probably the swingiest front in this turn order.

North Anduin: (Angmar), (Sylvan), (Dol Guldor), Gundabad, Northmen, Moria, Rivendell

• Gundabad can opens for Moria against Rivendell instead of vice versa (I get the sense that Gundabad will be much stronger up here than Moria because of Goblintown), and the Northmen can block. Angmar or Dol Guldor could potentially can-open a bit, but their production centers are pretty far from Rivendell. Rivendell can can-open for Sylvan mountaineers.

Central Misty Mountains: Saruman, Arnor/Tharbad, Sylvan, (Rohan), Moria, (Free Folk), Rivendell

• Moria can-opens for Saruman against Sylvans once again. Arnor could can-open for Sylvans, but they probably won't be next to each other too much. Free people can-open for Rivendell and Arnor instead of vice versa so you won't have two high elves suddenly letting 30 ponies through. Rohan no longer can-opens for Sylvans against Moria.

Gap of Rohan: Saruman, Gondor, Sylvan, Rohan

• Same as before

South Anduin: Mordor, Gondor, Harad, (Dol Guldor), Rohan

• Same as before. Dol Guldor is after harad, so you won't have 2 wargs breaking a screen and letting oliphants hit Rohan's army.

Southern Gondor: Gondor, Harad

• Same as before

Eriador: Angmar, Arnor, Gundabad, Freefolk, (Rivendell), (Dwarves)

• Gundabad can break Arnor's can-opens before the free folk can seize all the territory. Gundabad can-opens for Angmar, so Arnor can recover from dragon attacks.