Middle Earth: Battle For Arda - Official Thread

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.

zlefin

Ok, I tried again and was able to get it to work with a remove then redownload.

Still, it's odd that the 'update' button was missing and I had to do that, normally when a map has a new version there's a button for update.

It also reached 100% twice during that single download, (ie it reached 100%, then went back to 0 then started up again, like it had 2 separate things to download). Quite odd.

Cernel

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

It also reached 100% twice during that single download, (ie it reached 100%, then went back to 0 then started up again, like it had 2 separate things to download). Quite odd.

I'm not sure, but that or something like that happened to me as well, the first case of "100%" being fake.

TheDog

@zlefin & @Cernel
I too had a similar issue, I thought it was me/one off.
I went here and manually downloaded & installed it.
https://github.com/triplea-maps/battle_for_arda

Cernel

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

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

Only the map itself but not the download list.
https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/blob/master/triplea_maps.yaml

(This means that the description is outdated (still says Version 2.0.7, last update 2018.10.08. for engine 1.9.0.0.11000+), and users won't get the update prompt so will have to delete and re-download it if they otherwise know that an update happened.)

I'm saying just in case. I get that maybe you intended this to be a silent update?

mortetvie

I removed the map and re-downloaded it but it only shows the older version. How are people installing the new version?

zlefin

@mortetvie

did you actually load up the map to look at it? because it looks like and is labeled as the old version, despite being the new version. past that I've no idea, unless they're in the process of updating it properly, which is possible.

mortetvie

@zlefin I removed and reinstalled files and it now shows up offline but I can't choose the map online.

Before I was getting an error trying to load the original map online or offline.

zlefin

@mortetvie

what do you mean 'cant choose the map online' You mean in the bots? and if so are you using 2.6 or 2.5? cuz there's a lot of bot issues, and the bots haven't been updated wtih the new version of the map yet.

Mostly I'd say best to wait for various issues to be resolved unless you can direct host or play with someone direct hosting.

zlefin

blin and I finished our first game on the new version, a resounding and swift victory for evil; partly a result of some strategic mistakes, but partly it felt like the new v overcorrects in favor of evil, giving it a large advantage, and more of one than good had over evil in the prior version.

fawhxl

Awesome work with this map guys me and my friend play it tons, I knew about triplea a while ago and introduced to my friend almost a year ago now and we been playin the shit out of battle for arda him evil me good.

Anyway, we had it balanced our own way on the pervious version at 200% handicaps across the board except freefolk with evil additionally boosted.

Some other minor boosts here and there.

Anyway,
Excited to see how this new version plays out, and we kinda wanna try it with blitz but we're not sure cause that seems crazy but also maybe is interesting.

Was interested to see you cant build forts in mountains anymore, that was nice for angmar and orcs, for us atleast.

Probably gonna play straight 200% for everybody this time around if evil has a better start now.

And the reason I always played with 200% because the bigger numbers were fun and didnt seem to break things too much. 100% is good too though, just seems like 200% makes the game faster, but I like playing it slower at 100% too

This game is just so elegantly complex honestly and the lorefulness is so amazing too, atleast to me it feels like a struggle for Middle-Earth.

I cant read so I dont know if the change log says this or not but I'm excited to discover if there have been unit changes or if evil's beast/multi-hp units and spiders have been changed

zlefin

We've finished two more games with the new version, evil seems to have a very large advantage. In the third game we gave good a bunch of extra starting stuff (about 7 scattered walls in places that already had some and 64 tuv of units in non-forward positions) and evil still won and got ahead quite readily. Though some of that may be mistakes by good, but even that's not so clear.

The buff to uruk warriors seemed a bit unnecessary, they were already used a fair deal by some nations.

we do always play on ll which does ofc affect balance a little, but not THAT much.

saru is hugely stronger for sure, as expected. They get big and never seem to get beaten down at all, being quite able to maintain their entire territory and threaten to expand outward or support orcs.

The unit price adjustments do feel good and fairer, though they may contribute to the side imbalances felt in our games, since good used to heavily rely on those underpriced units. Still, it's better to have balanced unit costs and then fix any balance issues between the sides by adjusting other details.

Hao Zhou

I’ve played a couple games by myself vs hard AI on both sides and the game is much fairer, though obviously any side a human plays is going to be stronger.

I also ran the game on all-AI overnight and one time the good won, and one time evil won.

It seems like good is still overall stronger both games in the hands of the AI - both games they were ahead in both Production and army size.

Good only lost that one game despite being ahead for most of it because so much of its forces was “stuck” sieging Angmar - somehow most of Andor, and most of freefolk forces were all stuck there. Even then, good was still holding until Gondor finally fell.

In the game good won, they took the city and swept the whole map.

Some thoughts from my own games and the AI games

Pony rider is too weak - the cost increase was justified but maybe defense should be boosted 1 by to compensate.

Snagga goblins are too weak - 3/2 with no anti air, while their comparable archers are all 2/4 with anti air. Should be made 3/3 or given anti air (jav can take out ravens and eagles flying down to attack as well as a bow).

It’s odd that Moria is so bad on mountains and caves with most of their goblins unable to enter mountains, and their caves and mountains easily crushed by dwarven infantry, as their units get no bonuses on what you would expect to be Moria’s main terrain.

An overall comment is if there is a major rework coming, if overall terrain bonuses could be made more “logical” because I had to keep consulting the chart:

why are goblins regular levy? unable to go into mountains, and suck at fighting in caves. In the books they fight evenly against dwarves inside mountains/caves, and prefer them over exposed plains.
why cavalry is bad on open plains with a river, and yet decent in a marsh where horses should get stuck?
pikemen should be good on flat plains, rivers, and bad in forests, hills, instead of being relentless or unyielding and ignore terrain.

The units are already very complicated and terrain effects add another layer of complication, where one archer is an ambusher, another is levy, another wilderness, and they all have completely differently roles.

If there was a large rework, I’d like everything fall under

archer/ambush
troop (swords, axes, spears of men and orcs)
pikemen (bonus to flat plains, rivers, caves and cities, and bad on all others).
open/cav
air
mountain dwellers (dwarves, goblins)
forest dwellers (elves, treemen)
wilderness (scouts, wild men, beasts)

The concept of unyielding or relentless should be removed, buffed into their stats. They are elite because of higher stats, not because they fight equally on all terrain, and this will reduce confusion as well.

Overall great update, much better balance, and looking forward to what is next!

Hao Zhou

After a few more AI games I can conclude evil almost always win at fast AI (hard AI takes too long so I didn’t do any more of them).

It’s not a problem for humans, but for better “AI” behavior the AI needs to learn the value of using siege weapons attacking cities.

The AI will throw away hundreds of PU worth of units into walled cities and all die anyway, and it’s a bigger problem for good because Arnor doesn’t start with siege weapons or high attack units and will throw away 30 units to attack and lose to Carn Dum, repeat 5 turns later. Harad and Mordor units often keep their starting siege and anyway are high enough attack they still win their AI battles against Gonder walls.

It may be as simple as removing their support on attack (because they realistically aren’t archers) and instead make the terrain bonus “siege weapons” get + 6 attack, +2 defense in cities, -4 attack/defense in forests, caves, and give them a base stat of 2/2 for catapults, 4/4 for treb.

This also makes flanking better, as you can only flank outside of cities and previously siege weapons did nothing there anyway. A siege weapon across a river or on a mountain/hill is a powerful defensive and offensive tool.

The AI does take terrain bonus into account and will likely build and use them as a result for these improved stats.

Other bugs/balance issues

Rhun is too strong and this is partly due to war wagons being only 15PU for wall effects, 3 move, 2HP, and fortification terrain (which are all buffs). Should be 16-17PU and changed to OPEN terrain so it’s not longer so good in hills caves and forests.

Goblin shooter are quite good for being 4 cost and ambusher boosting its stats beyond a 5 cost archer in many scenarios.

Relentless on a cheap unit is very strong, and orc marauder is slightly too good due to being relentless. make it levy instead.

Free folk should get a siege. Probably catapult? Pony riders need to be 2/2 or 3/1, their cost increase to 5 make them very poor balanced against other 5 cost units.

Finally, elite good knights die too easily to cheap spearmen. They have only 1 HP, and cost 12 (swan knight) or 11 (kings company). Sure its party bad AI, but its weird even as a human player you have that an army attacking a single orc marauder, somehow 1/4 of the time it can just kill an elite knight. Knights attacking pikes like in the movie is pure suicide (but worked in the movie), and yet it’s also unavoidable in large battles between stacks in game.

Ideally, armor power should apply to formation rolls, so 6 swan knights charging 2 orc mauraders will completely negate their formation roll with the -18 armor power.
In my view though knights aren’t shielding the rest of the army and shouldn’t be providing -18 armor power in the first place, but instead elite knights should have 2 HP.

board 3659

@hao-zhou I would say that I agree with some of these. I think having range units counter formations negates the effect. Hell maybe make it be also siege weapons since there are situations where they could be used as artillery against large formations.

rsnorunt

@hao-zhou The AI is significantly better at playing good than evil, and I'm not sure how fixable it is. The hard AI is really good at calculating can-opens, which good uses much more than evil. On the other hand, it's terrible with ships, siege, and strafing with multihit units, all of which evil does more.

The classifications of orcs/goblins/uruks are def a bit weird. In the books, goblins and orcs are the same thing. Canonically the rank and file orcs were similar to the peasant troops of other nations (ie levies) and I don't think they were particularly suited to caves. Eg the interior of mordor was mostly plains. In the movies we have the orcish bowmen in Moria, which seem equivalent to the goblin archers, which have ambush and are great in caves (at least on defense). The regular orcs feel weirder. Canonically, they had terrible morale/organization, so relentless seems wrong for them, unless they're some larger/superior breed of orcs, like the black orcs. But those are (mordor) uruks. The snaga scouts I'm also not sure about. Snaga means slave so they might be enslaved men from the wildlands? Uruks being strong and relentless makes sense, though having the pikemen be unyielding seems a lil weird, since again they canonically had terrible morale.

Digressing from that though, the goblin spearmen are probably the best infantry in the game, since they're really cheap and levy, and have reasonable formation. I also think that the goblins/orcs are gonna be changed a bit in the new version.

In the new version, cavalry are going to get the full benefit on plains with a river, and penalized on marshes.

Most pikemen/spearmen are levy. Unyielding are in theory the really elite defensive troops (who excel unusually in rivers/cities, and are less bad on open plains than everyone else). Note that pikes would be terrible weapons in caves, but pretty reasonable weapons in hills. Agree they wouldn't do great in forests.

I think slightly reworking the terrain things makes sense, but I think there's a definite sense that some troops should be better at taking cities, and others better at defending them, and the relentless / levy / unyielding spectrum reflects that.

Other:

pony riders are a little weak. Before they were ridiculous, but the debuff hurt a bit too much
Snagas are meant to be weak. Mordor's chaff is strictly worse than gondor's and it's purposeful.
Moria orcs aren't bred for mountains or anything afaik. They just live there since they're drawn to the balrog's corruption / the forces of light are absent.
The war wagon is great, but not game-breaking, since as fortifications they're targeted by siege. If you build too many, your opponent just buys catapults
Goblin shooters are great, though only on the defense. They're probably the best defensive troops in the game (for hills, forests, and caves). This is mitigated a bit by them not being good at attack or at defending cities. Goblin spearmen are probably better overall
I wish orc marauders were levy (Actually I wish snagas were levy. A 6 cost levy is a bit too much). Mordor really suffers from not having a unit that can defend plains, and I think this is intentional.
Free folk def should not get siege. If they had siege, Isengard wouldn't be able to defend Tharbad at all. Though maybe with the nerf it wouldn't be too bad. The free folk horde is only mitigated by their bad siege, so they have to work with Arnor to take cities.
I think it would be good if armor affected formation, though it might be hard to implement. (Note that each opposing unit can only be affected by 1 armor, so two swan knights against one spearmen will only apply one -3 to it. Similarly two spearmen against one swan night will only attack with one formation attack)
I also agree with making siege units a little different, since you're right that they can be devastating outside of sieges, especially on defense. I think the siege attack is still useful though, since it cuts the power of walls/fortresses.