Middle Earth: Battle For Arda - Official Thread

mortetvie

@thedog Doubtless he used one of the rings of power to accomplish all of that...

zlefin

I forget whether we've covered this or not, and I can't get the search tools to find me the answer:

Currently, Flyers cannot go over FAlls of Rauros in 1 move. They have to use 2 moves. In order to fit the normal way flyers work on this map, they should be able to go from sz Lower anduin 4 to sz upper anduin 1 in just 1 move, much as they fly past all the other circle spots that mark crossings/towns/stuff along the river.

rsnorunt

Thanks for posting again Alkexr! It's totally fine that you're not that responsive on here! I think I speak for all of us when I say that we'd rather have you use your time to move towards a playable beta rather than responding to all our silly comments (this comment took way longer than an hour lol). Here are some thoughts I have on the final map. Feel free to take or leave any of them! You know best! And I'm looking forward to a beta soon. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help.

Love the final map, it's very pretty! Though I guess I'd prefer something to playtest over something pretty (though having a pretty map is definitely helpful in getting people to play). My only comments on the map appearance are to be careful about cave and pass appearance (if pass is still a terrain type).

I think that 2-step mountains and marshes are pretty interesting (presumably they don't affect fliers), though I think this definitely harms evil more than good. But I think this can be mitigated by territory values and unit changes. My main question is if this change eliminates the mountaineer trait. I think a lot of units are going to have to be reworked. Snagas, marauders, balchoth, and wild men are already a lot worse than the units they face, and without mountaineering (or even with it and with decreased range) they're even worse. 3-4 move mountaineers are going to be very powerful.

It feels like many of the Evil sides (Mordor, Harad, Angmar, Dol Guldor, and even Isengard) are supposed to have really shitty fodder and less production, but be balanced by good monsters/leadership and advantageous positioning. But it feels like their fodder is getting shittier and their positioning worse (because of increased distance between their cities and early game targets), without changes in anything else.

Here are some comments on individual factions:

Isengard:

I like the terrain in Dunland. It allows Isengard to mount a defense against rohan if they take the river.
The mountaineering changes make Methedras very hard to defend. Seems like Isengard will need a standing army on West Methedras or Dunland to stop hunters from getting into Dunland
A turn 2 Tharbad capture is much harder, since Arnor can reinforce (for example by building a 3rd wall). Also the Marsh at swanfleet makes Tharbad much harder to attack. In the past, the only way I've been able to hold off the Free folk as Isengard is to take Tharbad early and build a wall and a few pikemen before the Free Folk get there. Now it seems like Isengard will be fighting a losing battle in northern Dunland.
Taking Ost in Edhil turn 1 seems much more necessary now
I like the number of options Isengard has to choose from in the south. Freca's stronghold, Grimslade, the Hornburg, and the Fanghorn all seem like (potentially) reasonable choices

Angmar:

Not sure that it matters that the forodwaith area is less accessible. Angmar can never get troops there again, so it'll belong to good. It'll just take a turn or two more.
Cold drakes seem very interesting
Overall I'm interested in seeing Angmar's new unitset
It looks like Angmar has some potentially reasonable early game plays in the East
Only one settlement is still a major disadvantage. Maybe Fornost is easier to take now? (I doubt it)
Will Angmar be able to afford dragons anymore? A lot of their production went to Gundabad.

Mordor:

Mordor seems significantly weaker. In the past they relied on flipping all the territory on the East bank of the Anduin to (somewhat) match Gondor in production. Now it will be significantly harder to take any of that land. In order to take Ithilien, Mordor will need to hold the Morgulduin and perhaps also crossroads and Emyn Arnen. But orcs are incredibly inefficient defending on plains, so it seems likely to take 4 turns or so hold Ithilien.
The dead mashes seem good for protecting Amon Lhaw from Gondor, though it seems unlikely that 3 units a turn in Amon Lhaw will be able to do much to Rohan.
The new mountain rules mean that rangers in Ithilien can threaten southern mordor as fast as troops from Barad Dur can defend it.
Mordor/Dol Guldor/Rhun have fewer free IPCs in the brown lands, though I guess they already start with some of them.
Is Mordor losing Shelob? She was pretty helpful in defending their otherwise weaksauce stacks.

Arnor:

I feel like Arnor is meant to have 3 potential strategies: Attack Angmar, attack Mount Grum and help Rivendell, or attack Isengard in the south. It seems to me like attacking Isengard is the easiest of the three. Arnor's troops are much more efficient than Isengard's in the plains, and the territory there is pretty valuable. Ofc, maybe to pull that off Angmar will grow too strong in the North.
Anuminas is farther from Angmar, so I guess it'll take another turn or two for Arnor's full force to attack
Fornost is closer to Carn Dum (though that won't fall easy)

Gondor:

We didn't see the new Gondor coastline, but Gondor is stronger in basically every way. I guess Caer andros is a bit harder to defend

Northmen:

Framsburg is much less vulnerable to a surprise attack
Resource allocation between Gundabad, Dol Guldor, Dale, Rhovanion, and the Celduin seems like an interesting decision. And investing too little in an area will actually have consequences
Greylin seems like it'll be fought over, since it's a much better defensive position than North Eotheod. Though depending on how much the dwarves invest it might never happen
The long marshes actually seem like a mild disadvantage rather than an advantage, since troops in Esgaroth will need to use boats to reach Dale or Rhovanion

Silvan Elves:

The Silvan elves in the woodland realm seem pretty weak. Though I guess if they invest up there, ents will play very well against dol guldor's troops.
No more ridiculous turn 1 against dol guldor
Moria can't hurt wardens in the woods anymore, and can't counter supported ents in the mountains

Gundabad:

The new mountain rules mean that Eagles Eyrie will last at least a turn. This is pretty terrifying
Goblins in Langwell and Rhimdath can actually hold against the northmen (unless they underinvest against Rhun)
Archers are still strictly worse than spearmen everywhere except the east or west trollshaws, the front porch, or the goblin gate
Holding the weather hills seems important
On the one hand, more hills makes the area around mount grum much more defensible by angmar. On the other hand, goblins do as well in the plains.

Moria:

Fighting elves without goblins seems difficult, especially with Eagles' Eyrie alive on turn 1
Moria can't actually protect Fanuidhol or Hithaeglir
Eregion is closer to Rivendell than Moria now, which seems tough, and without goblins, holding it or Hollin seems very difficult
Moria either needs to start with a lot more or get some better defensive units if it ever hopes to beat Lorien.
Snagas can't attack cities and are blocked by wardens, marauders and warg cavalry can't defend, bats get shot, and trolls are very expensive. Warg scouts seem to be their only reasonable bet at this point

Rivendell:

Rivendell itself seems incredibly defensible, and can't fall on turn 2 anymore
The Trollshaws seem very easy to hold, if they can be taken
Eregion, Hithaeglir, and Hollin are easier for them to hold than Moria
They have lots of neutral land to take in the West.
Gundabad is a much bigger threat than Moria

Harad:

We didn't see them

Rhun:

Seems mostly the same
The Iron Hills seem harder to take, but Rhun can now attack Dale without them
Ships seem even more important (though against a good player Rhun will never win there)

Dol Guldor:

Assuming they go before the Northmen, they should be able to put the Northmen on the defensive by taking Rhosgobel, Lands of the Woodmen, Eryn Galen, and North Wilderland. This will allow them to protect west wilderand, which seems quite important for them.
If the Northmen go first, they might still have a chance. They probably can't take ???-Fuin even with a Silvan can-open, which means that Dol guldor can at least consolidate. Though they could probably make taking Rhosgobel very difficult.
I'm interested to see what the new spiders do.
A turn 1 attack on the Fields of Celebrant seems like a somewhat reasonable play, though its likely that the Silvan elves will take the upper undeeps first.

Free Folk:

They seem similar. A little more vulnerable to attack by Gundabad and Angmar, but they need to commit far fewer troops to the south
They still have tons of free ipcs

Dwarves:

Seems like they can just attack Gundabad through Eotheod rather than Forodwaith.
Seems like putting the Halls of Gror on the river makes it more vulnerable to attack. I still think it's a worthwhile change
Thorin's stronghold is actually relevant now
They can choose between Angmar, Rhun, Dale, and Gundabad, which is nice

Rohan:

Looks like Isengard will have a tough time killing all Rohan's units on turn 1.
Helming warriors will probably be a little less OP now, which is good
I think the Amon Hen vs Amon Lhaw conflict looks great, though I'm dubious that Mordor can actually pose a threat with only 3 production, given that cavalry from Edoras can range to the lower Undeeps in 2 turns.
The marshes in southern Rohan make Aldberg and Edoras significantly better at defending those areas. This makes the heartland of Rohan much harder to take
Rohan probably won't be reinforcing Gondor much (though they rarely did in games I've played)

zlefin

I'm wondering alkexr do you play in the lobby at all? I'm not sure I've ever seen you there, unless you use a different name there.

I watched the videos; and it sounds like the way play goes in your games is somewhat different from what I typically see. So I thought it'd be interesting to see what games you play end up like. Are there instances of your saves somewhere online? Play by post games for instance? Or of the games that you've watched others play a lot?

alkexr

@TheDog

What graphic software did you decide on in the end?

GIMP, mainly, sprinkled with some paint-dot-net for some of the steps as I'm more familiar with that one.

What videos did you watch to learn the 'art' ?

Odd choice of a word, is that what you're implying? (I welcome constructive criticism on my English.)
I didn't learn it from videos. I used google to navigate the features of GIMP, but mainly it was... well, it's difficult to explain in just a couple of sentences. To someone looking, it would look like trial and error, except it's a very particular way of doing the trial and error, with a theory of creativity behind it. It's a very powerful tool, unfortunately there isn't really a good summary I can link to, maybe I'll take the time to explain it in depth at some point.

@rsnorunt

Here are some thoughts I have on the final map. Feel free to take or leave any of them!

I just want to point out that this is the sort of feedback that usually ends up being the most useful. Sharing your observations and your intuitions, the faint "it feels like", even though you yourself aren't sure about it. You, the player, are the expert on what it feels like to be the player. If the game makes you feel something then that's valid and carries important information about the game. Ultimately, that's why we play games in the first place. I just wanted to mention this because providing useful feedback is a very useful skill nowadays, here and elsewhere, and this is a good example of it. Thanks!

Only one settlement is still a major disadvantage. Maybe Fornost is easier to take now?

At the moment Angmar can take Fornost turn 2 and there is nothing Arnor can do about it. But the balance right now is the result of literally me just placing a bunch of starting units on the map without thinking about it, so it's not reflective of much if anything. There is more work to be done before I'll invest more effort in balance.

Cold drakes seem very interesting

They do? Did I leak something I didn't mean to? Oh well.

Is Mordor losing Shelob?

Not in the game atm, will come back later.

We didn't see the new Gondor coastline, but Gondor is stronger in basically every way.

It's the topic of the first video. Gondor is strong, but the naval invasions are a huge pain to defend against.

Harad:
We didn't see them

Whoops! It's still just a desert divided randomly into a dozen or so territories though, so not much to see.

???-Fuin

Taur-nu-Fuin

@zlefin

I'm wondering alkexr do you play in the lobby at all?

No.

I watched the videos; and it sounds like the way play goes in your games is somewhat different from what I typically see. So I thought it'd be interesting to see what games you play end up like. Are there instances of your saves somewhere online? Play by post games for instance? Or of the games that you've watched others play a lot?

I haven't played for quite a while. There are two of my games linked somewhere in this thread. Other people have posted some of their savegames here as well. But I'm not sure what you mean, could you give an example?

zlefin

I'm not entirely sure I remember exactly what you said in the videos; but for the examples:

The loss of cair andros is quite expected in my games, and always happens in the early rounds. It's not particularly fatal for good or anything, just somewhat harmful.

In my games Rhun is usually coming around the west side of the rivers with the bulk of its forces rather than coming around the east way where Gror is.

rsnorunt

@alkexr

It's the topic of the first video. Gondor is strong, but the naval invasions are a huge pain to defend against.

I wasn't sure if things had been changed after the first video, but based on the first video I don't think naval invasions have been made any easier. While you've added new coastal settlements and made it a bit harder to move troops between them, you haven't made it any harder for Gondor to mount a naval defense.

The crux of the problem is that black ships are a 7/4/2, and dromunds are a 5/5/2. This means that while black ships have an advantage when attacking dromunds, they're at a disadvantage when attacked (while still costing 15% more). This means that Gondor can build a fleet in the sea zone just south of Dol Amroth / Western Belfalas. Any sea zone within 2 spaces of any Gondor territory is within 2 spaces of the Belfalas SZ. This means that Gondor can preemptively attack the Harad fleet no matter where they are before they have a chance to land. This is the same strategy I used in the current version. Gondor need only spend 24 IPCs a turn the first turn and any subsequent turn that Harad builds ships to completely neuter them.

Ideally the sea zones would be designed so that Gondor would have to split their fleet to properly defend against a Harad invasion, thus forcing them to spend more on defense than Harad spends on attack. One way to do this would be to give black ships an extra movement (but still make it require 4+ move to get from the City of Corsairs to the Gondor coast). Though this might make black ships too powerful. Another way would be giving black ships more defense, so they maintain their advantage over dromunds even when attacked.

Gondor still would have the money to outspend Harad on navy, but if Harad is more efficient than Gondor, it at least might make sense for them to try, And then Gondor will have to decide how much it can afford to divert from Mordor to protect its coast.

alkexr

Since people are asking questions. The project is not abandoned, I'm still working on version 3. I can't say it's going quickly, but every few months I tinker a bit. That said, probably more than half the work is still ahead of me, a nasty case of scope creep I'm afraid. So yeah.

zlefin

any possibility of just releasing a version 2 balance patch with the most important/useful fixes, I forget if there's any bug fixes in one as well.

alkexr

2.1 beta with balance changes and bugfixes is out. If you want to test it out, you can download it manually (green "code" button, "download zip"). I'll wait a bit before pushing this version to the in-game downloader.

Changelog:

Unit price changes: rangers 7 PUs, up from 6; pony riders 5 PUs, up from 4; eagles 32 PUs, up from 24; winged nazgul 36 PUs, up from 30
Unit stats rebalance: uruk warriors attack 5, up from 4; oathbreakers defense 1, down from 2
3 units can be placed in Fornost, down from 5
Territory production changes: Dale 6 prod. (up from 4), Esgaroth 8 prod. (up from 6), Lond Daer 6 prod. (up from 4)
Angmar owns East and West Forochel Coast. Starts with an extra warg rider on the former and 2 warg riders and 2 snaga skirmishers on the latter.
Freefolk starts with fewer units. Removed 1 ranger from Andrath, 1 pony rider from Brandywine Bridge, 1 spearman from Archet, 1 scout from Bree Hill and 1 pony rider and 1 hobbit archer from Old Winyards.
Saruman starts with more units. 3 additional halforcs in Nan Curunír.
Rohan starts with fewer units. 2 Helming warriors, 2 bowmen and 1 riddermark militia removed from Hornburg.
Rohan starts with its cavalry further away from the front. 1 King's Company from Edoras, 2 Eorling riders from West Emnet and 1 Eorling rider from the Eastfold was moved to the Folde.
Territory effects no longer block blitzing if blitzing is enabled in the game options
Fixed the oliphaunt TUV bug
Added a "canal" connection across the Falls of Rauros for air units only
Updated game notes

zlefin

Looks like good changes for the most part. I look forward to playing it. Though I can't play it online until the updates make it to the bots. I poked through it some in single player and it all seemed to work fine.

The net changes seem like a pretty big boost to evil; while I agree evil needed a boost, this seems like quite a large one, with a tuv shift of some +100 for evil. I'll have to play it some to get a feel for how it works out though, as these are notoriously tricky. It's certainly going to be a huge difference for what saruman can do early on, as he now cannot be piled on so much, which will let him hold his income for much longer.

Ronist

Thank you so much for the update! Very excited to play it again. Quick question: Did you design and update the map with the intent for it to be played with low luck, or regular dice? Went through the game notes for recommended map settings but didn't see one for dice. I thought I remembered one of the LOTR maps had low luck in mind but it might have been the older map not Battle for Arda.

rsnorunt

@alkexr Thanks for the balance patch and for continuing to work on the next version.

I think that the balance changes are pretty all good:

It helps out Isengard a lot against Rohan and the Free Folk, which was very needed, and makes uruk warriors less useless
It makes Winged Nazgul and Eagles less dominant when used
It gives the northmen a bit more production against Rhun
It gives Angmar an extra 1-2 turns before the seige

However, I think it's missing two huge balance issues in the game:

Dol Guldor can be irreparably held back on turn 1, since the woodland realm can take out two spiders before they move (with 100% chance on low luck). I think that either Dol Guldor needs 1-2 more snagas on west mirkwood and the narrows, or the woodland realm needs 1-2 fewer sentinels (maybe replace with spearmen or a wall, or just move them farther back).
Moria can likely take Rivendell on turn 2 (with ~70% chance in low luck. Basically if they don't lose the duel) and there's nothing Good can do to stop it. I think another wall in Rivendell should be sufficient

zlefin

Has it been long enough for this to be pushed to the downloader?

and how long does it take something to get to the bots after its been pushed to the in-game download system?

alkexr

The map is now updated in the in-game downloader.

I couldn't find a good way to fix the issue with Rivendell @rsnorunt pointed out. One extra wall is far from enough if Moria buys catapults in Goblin Town. I'll keep an eye out for a solution.

On Dol Guldur I disagree. Rhun can help. It's a tradeoff.

Zaroph

@alkexr
Cool to see its been updated, was looking forward to playing new version. Will give it a go thanks.

rsnorunt

I had the chance to play both sides against the hard AI. A bit hard to properly judge because the AI is absolute shit (esp at playing Evil). But my feedback is:

When playing Evil:

Angmar felt noticeably easier, to the point where it might be game-breaking. In previous games against the CPU, I'd be fighting a losing battle from turn 1, eventually getting restricted to just my cities and maybe the mountains between them. In this game, I was never in danger of losing a city, and managed to hold off Arnor and the Free Folk while simultaneously pressuring the Dwarves and Northmen with my dragons. Though then again this may just be because I took Rivendell on turn 2.
Isengard also felt noticeably easier. I took Tharbad on turn 2, but was never really in danger from the tide of free folk. I was able to hold the gap of rohan and/or the westfold for the entire game, and rohan never sent troops to the other side of the Isen. The uruk bonus felt huge, and I actually used them as a result
The AI still has no clue how to use ships, so I managed to build some rafts and take Pelargir and all of western Gondor with the harad. After that the game was trivial.
The AI just gave up Rhosgobel, so Dol Guldor was pretty easy. I did help with Rhun and Mordor, but help can't really arrive until ~ turn 3, and Rhun is very bad in the forest

When playing good:

Arnor, the Free Folk, and Rohan didn't feel any harder to play. Though Angmar stranded a dragon on turn 1 and focused entirely on Framsburg, so Arnor/FF had an easy time of it. Also Isengard decided to split its forces in three parts so I could defeat it in detail. I think the AI doesn't really understand the value of strafing, multi-hit units, or fear/leadership... I think against a real opponent it would be much harder.
With the woodland realm I took two spiders from Dol Guldor on turn 1. Yes I sacrificed the wizard and needed help from the Northmen, but they never even got close to taking Rhosgobel, and rarely even took the narrows of Mirkwood. Rhun and Mordor tried to help them too, but the AI was bad at it
Is still ended up buying rangers, ponies, and eagles (and winged nazgul) so I think those changes were fine.

On Rivendell:

For the Rivendell turn 2 capture I described, you need to buy 4 catapults in Goblintown (all your money) and mobilize almost everything within range. The elves on the other hand need to build a wall, 4 elven archers, and 1 noldorin (max bodies / armor per $).
This means that the most the orcs can have is: 4 trolls, 4 spearmen, 6 archers, 6 catapults, 3 warg scouts, 3 warg riders, 9 orcs and a balrog. Also 2 bats but they'd die instantly. Though in practice a few of those will have died. Also, through clever play, Good can try to stop the two trolls in the trollshaws from reaching Rivendell. Though it might be impossible if Angmar tries hard enough.
The elves can have: 7 walls, 2 sentinels, 3 noldorins, 2 cavalry, 7 archers, an eagle, and a wizard (I'm assuming that Angmar takes the Eyrie and Rhudaur bc obviously they will)
With regular luck this has a ~93% chance of victory for Evil. With an extra wall it's ~84%.
On low luck it has a 100% chance of victory for Evil. With an extra wall it's still 100%. But with two trolls and two goblins less it's down to ~78% (whereas without the wall but minus the trolls and goblins it's 97%).
If additionally you make Rivendell a forest, you'll drop Evil's win chance by another 10%. If you add an ancient tower instead of the wall you drop it 20% (above what the wall already did). Though if you don't take it turn 2, that means you'll never take it. One other thing you could do is drop Orc first turn IPC by 2, so you can only buy 3 catapults. This also doesn't eliminate the victory, but it reduces it by 10-20%
A 70% chance doesn't actually sound too bad, since then clever play on the margins will change it quite a bit. And the IPC trade will likely still be negative in expectation. Though then again, whichever side loses will be held back pretty irreparably... It's a hard problem lol

On Dol Guldor:

I still disagree with your disagreement (lol), but you're the designer. The ideal change imo would be very small. Eg Dol Guldor getting one extra snaga, or one elven sentinel being one step farther away.
Like maybe have 2 sentinals on the elf path and one on the mountains of mirkwood, and give the woodland realms 2-3 IPCs as a bonus on turn 1

Also, I've noticed that there are a few major decisions early on that radically damage you if you don't do them. Eg taking Eagle's Eyrie or preserving your dragons with Angmar. Taking Tharbad turn 2 with Isengard. Building boats in the Celduin as the Northmen etc. I know the old middle earth map had a list of tips for turn 1. Have you collected anything of that nature?

zlefin

I'm not finding it in the ingame downloader, it still seems to hvae the old version, without any option to update to the new version, nor does doing a remove/add bring in the new version. Are others able to find it in the downloader?
I've updated to the 2.6 line, so that can't be the problem.

Cernel

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

I'm not finding it in the ingame downloader, it still seems to hvae the old version, without any option to update to the new version, nor does doing a remove/add bring in the new version. Are others able to find it in the downloader?
I've updated to the 2.6 line, so that can't be the problem.

Are you going to report this problem? I've tested (removing the previous map and downloading the new same-named one) that the download just does not work: the map is not pasted into the folder at all. Looks like this is a major problem right on release time.

Cernel

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

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

I'm not finding it in the ingame downloader, it still seems to hvae the old version, without any option to update to the new version, nor does doing a remove/add bring in the new version. Are others able to find it in the downloader?
I've updated to the 2.6 line, so that can't be the problem.

Are you going to report this problem? I've tested (removing the previous map and downloading the new same-named one) that the download just does not work: the map is not pasted into the folder at all. Looks like this is a major problem right on release time.

Uhm, now it is there instead. It looks like that either there is no problem (so I overlooked something) or it took more time (meaning that, when the downloader showed 100%, the map was actually not yet 100% downloaded but was still downloading).

Whatever the case, now all looks fine for me, and I have the new version with no apparent problems.